Taking over Greenland, world's largest island, area ~2,000,000 km^2: failed. Taking over Kharg, area ~20 km^2: probably not going to happen. Must it now be Rockall, or is there an islet near Mar-a-Lago?
There's a big island near Mar-a-Lago that he has his sights on.
Isn't Mar-a-Lago on an island?
True, maybe it should be renamed Trump Island.
That would be confusing when he renames Manhattan.
Jenrick hasn't been good for Reform. I defended his being welcomed, because I think he's a good politician, but I actually think he's been destabilising whilst also being 'conservatising'.
The Kobeissi Letter @KobeissiLetter · 25m BREAKING: Iran says no talks have taken place through mediators for a temporary ceasefire with the US and Israel.
This morning, President Trump said Iran’s President “asked the US for a ceasefire.”
Which liar do you wish to believe?
It’s actually possible both are telling the truth.
I can imagine Iran’s intelligence agencies fixing somebody to negotiate who has no actual power or status to string Trump along pretending to be Pezeshkian, and because Trump and his acolytes are really thick and believe they are amazingly clever being totally deceived.
Meanwhile the President (who has no control of the armed forces) is wondering ‘WTF is this guy smoking? I’m not talking to him.’
And meanwhile the TACO is delayed to the great economic advantage of the IRGC.
Jenrick hasn't been good for Reform. I defended his being welcomed, because I think he's a good politician, but I actually think he's been destabilising whilst also being 'conservatising'.
However, watch it be incredibly popular.
Good news for everybody else if Reform and Con split the pensioner vote.
Things have been quiet on the Jenrick front on PB, has his fan club dispersed?
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
47% of GB owned by wealthiest 10% 8% of GB owned by poorest 50%
Your figure of 43% was close, but I've based the above on the latest ONS figures, plus Advani and Tarrant corrections adding a few percent to the top 1% and top 10% which was missed from close-companies and equity, and undersampling.
Even without the corrections, it remains hideous. And when you factor in income, one can see that the poorest are working to make the wealthiest richer. So the issue of the welfare state is really obscuring the real steal and even if the Greens don't have a fully-fledged plan, only they are identifying the issue on the national level. The concern about the welfare state pales even more when we consider impending AI+robotics impacts on working. The wealthiest don't even actually need to work - that is the real welfare state, it's torrent-up not trickle-down. I'm not sure those of us in the lowest decile should be thankful for being thrown crumbs.
How is people keeping money they worked for in any sense a "steal"?
The real "steal" is taking vast amounts of money from those that earn it and giving it to those who sit on their arses all day, or can't be bothered to become more productive.
And, unsurprisingly, it is disastrous for everybody over time anyway. It rewards exactly those people who don't deserve it - the lazy and the unproductive, and penalises the achievers, and so it devastates economic growth. That the effects of reduced incentives aren't immediately visible doesn't make them any less real.
So it fails in the long run even on its own terms.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
47% of GB owned by wealthiest 10% 8% of GB owned by poorest 50%
Your figure of 43% was close, but I've based the above on the latest ONS figures, plus Advani and Tarrant corrections adding a few percent to the top 1% and top 10% which was missed from close-companies and equity, and undersampling.
Even without the corrections, it remains hideous. And when you factor in income, one can see that the poorest are working to make the wealthiest richer. So the issue of the welfare state is really obscuring the real steal and even if the Greens don't have a fully-fledged plan, only they are identifying the issue on the national level. The concern about the welfare state pales even more when we consider impending AI+robotics impacts on working. The wealthiest don't even actually need to work - that is the real welfare state, it's torrent-up not trickle-down. I'm not sure those of us in the lowest decile should be thankful for being thrown crumbs.
How is people keeping money they worked for in any sense a "steal"?
The real "steal" is taking vast amounts of money from those that earn it and giving it to those who sit on their arses all day, or can't be bothered to become more productive.
And, unsurprisingly, it is disastrous for everybody over time anyway. It rewards exactly those people who don't deserve it - the lazy and the unproductive, and penalises the achievers, and so it devastates economic growth. That the effects of reduced incentives aren't immediately visible doesn't make them any less real.
So it fails in the long run even on its own terms.
An American visitor to London once asked what peers were.
Came the reply: ‘They are people who don’t need to work because they have the same status in society as their parents.’
‘Oh,’ said the Yank. ‘We have people like that in the States too, but we call them tramps or hobos.’
Taking over Greenland, world's largest island, area ~2,000,000 km^2: failed. Taking over Kharg, area ~20 km^2: probably not going to happen. Must it now be Rockall, or is there an islet near Mar-a-Lago?
There's a big island near Mar-a-Lago that he has his sights on.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
47% of GB owned by wealthiest 10% 8% of GB owned by poorest 50%
Your figure of 43% was close, but I've based the above on the latest ONS figures, plus Advani and Tarrant corrections adding a few percent to the top 1% and top 10% which was missed from close-companies and equity, and undersampling.
Even without the corrections, it remains hideous. And when you factor in income, one can see that the poorest are working to make the wealthiest richer. So the issue of the welfare state is really obscuring the real steal and even if the Greens don't have a fully-fledged plan, only they are identifying the issue on the national level. The concern about the welfare state pales even more when we consider impending AI+robotics impacts on working. The wealthiest don't even actually need to work - that is the real welfare state, it's torrent-up not trickle-down. I'm not sure those of us in the lowest decile should be thankful for being thrown crumbs.
How is people keeping money they worked for in any sense a "steal"?
The real "steal" is taking vast amounts of money from those that earn it and giving it to those who sit on their arses all day, or can't be bothered to become more productive.
And, unsurprisingly, it is disastrous for everybody over time anyway. It rewards exactly those people who don't deserve it - the lazy and the unproductive, and penalises the achievers, and so it devastates economic growth. That the effects of reduced incentives aren't immediately visible doesn't make them any less real.
So it fails in the long run even on its own terms.
A good argument for 100% inheiritance tax so we can lower taxes on income.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
47% of GB owned by wealthiest 10% 8% of GB owned by poorest 50%
Your figure of 43% was close, but I've based the above on the latest ONS figures, plus Advani and Tarrant corrections adding a few percent to the top 1% and top 10% which was missed from close-companies and equity, and undersampling.
Even without the corrections, it remains hideous. And when you factor in income, one can see that the poorest are working to make the wealthiest richer. So the issue of the welfare state is really obscuring the real steal and even if the Greens don't have a fully-fledged plan, only they are identifying the issue on the national level. The concern about the welfare state pales even more when we consider impending AI+robotics impacts on working. The wealthiest don't even actually need to work - that is the real welfare state, it's torrent-up not trickle-down. I'm not sure those of us in the lowest decile should be thankful for being thrown crumbs.
How is people keeping money they worked for in any sense a "steal"?
The real "steal" is taking vast amounts of money from those that earn it and giving it to those who sit on their arses all day, or can't be bothered to become more productive.
And, unsurprisingly, it is disastrous for everybody over time anyway. It rewards exactly those people who don't deserve it - the lazy and the unproductive, and penalises the achievers, and so it devastates economic growth. That the effects of reduced incentives aren't immediately visible doesn't make them any less real.
So it fails in the long run even on its own terms.
A good argument for 100% inheiritance tax so we can lower taxes on income.
Wouldn't that have the effect of sending the old and the sick to live in other countries before they die?
The knock on would be lower levels of costs for the NHS/Local Authorities as they wouldn't have the health and care costs?
‘ So Jenrick's Reform will be keeping the Blairite monetary policy framework (BoE Independence), the Cameroon fiscal policy framework (OBR) & at least 1 of the 2 key fiscal burdens (triple lock & NHS spend). Basically, Reform now rejects almost any reform of macroeconomic policy.’
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
47% of GB owned by wealthiest 10% 8% of GB owned by poorest 50%
Your figure of 43% was close, but I've based the above on the latest ONS figures, plus Advani and Tarrant corrections adding a few percent to the top 1% and top 10% which was missed from close-companies and equity, and undersampling.
Even without the corrections, it remains hideous. And when you factor in income, one can see that the poorest are working to make the wealthiest richer. So the issue of the welfare state is really obscuring the real steal and even if the Greens don't have a fully-fledged plan, only they are identifying the issue on the national level. The concern about the welfare state pales even more when we consider impending AI+robotics impacts on working. The wealthiest don't even actually need to work - that is the real welfare state, it's torrent-up not trickle-down. I'm not sure those of us in the lowest decile should be thankful for being thrown crumbs.
How is people keeping money they worked for in any sense a "steal"?
The real "steal" is taking vast amounts of money from those that earn it and giving it to those who sit on their arses all day, or can't be bothered to become more productive.
And, unsurprisingly, it is disastrous for everybody over time anyway. It rewards exactly those people who don't deserve it - the lazy and the unproductive, and penalises the achievers, and so it devastates economic growth. That the effects of reduced incentives aren't immediately visible doesn't make them any less real.
So it fails in the long run even on its own terms.
An American visitor to London once asked what peers were.
Came the reply: ‘They are people who don’t need to work because they have the same status in society as their parents.’
‘Oh,’ said the Yank. ‘We have people like that in the States too, but we call them tramps or hobos.’
These days, that joke works better with the final line:
'Oh,' said the Yank. 'We have someone like that in the States too, but we elected him President'.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
Have I ever suggested that the UK welfare state is not expensive and overburdens the middle income tax payer? No I haven't.
What I said in a nutshell is if you are going to ensure the poorest are even poorer you need to offer them a way out.
I would much prefer as Robert suggested people are given the opportunity to make their own way in life.
What is the point of Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg owning everything and the rest of us living in the gutter?
The argument isn't about closing libraries in Wolverhampton, it is about overhauling the current capitalist system.
The three very wealthy men named all derive that wealth from shares in companies they founded, and worked bloody hard at for decades before they ever made a profit.
The problem isn’t a few rich people, it’s governments robbing Peter to pay Paul, and their being enough Pauls to keep voting for the handouts.
UK government also hasn’t balanced their budget since 2001, when one Gordon Brown divorced Prudence and turned on the spending taps hard. There’s now effectively a mortgage to be serviced, a debt of 2.5x annual government income of money that’s already been spent.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
Have I ever suggested that the UK welfare state is not expensive and overburdens the middle income tax payer? No I haven't.
What I said in a nutshell is if you are going to ensure the poorest are even poorer you need to offer them a way out.
I would much prefer as Robert suggested people are given the opportunity to make their own way in life.
What is the point of Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg owning everything and the rest of us living in the gutter?
The argument isn't about closing libraries in Wolverhampton, it is about overhauling the current capitalist system.
The three very wealthy men named all derive that wealth from shares in companies they founded, and worked bloody hard at for decades before they ever made a profit.
The problem isn’t a few rich people, it’s governments robbing Peter to pay Paul, and their being enough Pauls to keep voting for the handouts.
UK government also hasn’t balanced their budget since 2001, when one Gordon Brown divorced Prudence and turned on the spending taps hard. There’s now effectively a mortgage to be serviced, a debt of 2.5x annual government income of money that’s already been spent.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
‘ So Jenrick's Reform will be keeping the Blairite monetary policy framework (BoE Independence), the Cameroon fiscal policy framework (OBR) & at least 1 of the 2 key fiscal burdens (triple lock & NHS spend). Basically, Reform now rejects almost any reform of macroeconomic policy.’
I think Reform are also the least likely party to do anything about welfare spending, despite all the rhetoric. Look at the equivocation over the two-child limit.
What we really need is more detailed polling on income. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are in the lead among UC and PIP claimants, as well as council house tenants. The real battle will be with the Conservatives for pensioners.
The Kobeissi Letter @KobeissiLetter · 25m BREAKING: Iran says no talks have taken place through mediators for a temporary ceasefire with the US and Israel.
This morning, President Trump said Iran’s President “asked the US for a ceasefire.”
Which liar do you wish to believe?
It’s actually possible both are telling the truth.
I can imagine Iran’s intelligence agencies fixing somebody to negotiate who has no actual power or status to string Trump along pretending to be Pezeshkian, and because Trump and his acolytes are really thick and believe they are amazingly clever being totally deceived.
Meanwhile the President (who has no control of the armed forces) is wondering ‘WTF is this guy smoking? I’m not talking to him.’
And meanwhile the TACO is delayed to the great economic advantage of the IRGC.
Does Tehran have radio pranksters? Trumpis notorious for talking to anybody who phones him...
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
Have I ever suggested that the UK welfare state is not expensive and overburdens the middle income tax payer? No I haven't.
What I said in a nutshell is if you are going to ensure the poorest are even poorer you need to offer them a way out.
I would much prefer as Robert suggested people are given the opportunity to make their own way in life.
What is the point of Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg owning everything and the rest of us living in the gutter?
The argument isn't about closing libraries in Wolverhampton, it is about overhauling the current capitalist system.
The three very wealthy men named all derive that wealth from shares in companies they founded, and worked bloody hard at for decades before they ever made a profit.
The problem isn’t a few rich people, it’s governments robbing Peter to pay Paul, and their being enough Pauls to keep voting for the handouts.
UK government also hasn’t balanced their budget since 2001, when one Gordon Brown divorced Prudence and turned on the spending taps hard. There’s now effectively a mortgage to be serviced, a debt of 2.5x annual government income of money that’s already been spent.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
I used Musk etc as an easy to use metaphor. My point is people like yourself and Max last night are happy to see 50/60 of the population living in penury when one percent hold all the cards. My point is the super wealthy don't need money whose primary function is to be counted. They are not reinvesting the surplus.
That's Vance's version of Johan Major's "old maids cycling to Evensong" at Medieval rural parish churches, or Nigel Farage's imagined version of the 1950s that never existed except in his head.
Vance is using to the "white churches of Virginia (or New England)" myth to appeal to the Evangelicalism for which he expressed scorn for when he became a Roman Catholic; he called Evangelicalism "unsatisfying", and he was right if it is the unthinking Born Again template, limited to the agenda moulded by Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority fifty years ago, made up of a projected personal morality, "but never mind the wars or the wealth".
There's also an underlying cultural appeal to the pre-Civil War architecture, embodying a romanticised past.
JDV needs both the White Evangelical and Integralist Roman Catholic wings to keep his goose flying.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
Have I ever suggested that the UK welfare state is not expensive and overburdens the middle income tax payer? No I haven't.
What I said in a nutshell is if you are going to ensure the poorest are even poorer you need to offer them a way out.
I would much prefer as Robert suggested people are given the opportunity to make their own way in life.
What is the point of Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg owning everything and the rest of us living in the gutter?
The argument isn't about closing libraries in Wolverhampton, it is about overhauling the current capitalist system.
The three very wealthy men named all derive that wealth from shares in companies they founded, and worked bloody hard at for decades before they ever made a profit.
The problem isn’t a few rich people, it’s governments robbing Peter to pay Paul, and their being enough Pauls to keep voting for the handouts.
UK government also hasn’t balanced their budget since 2001, when one Gordon Brown divorced Prudence and turned on the spending taps hard. There’s now effectively a mortgage to be serviced, a debt of 2.5x annual government income of money that’s already been spent.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
I used Musk etc as an easy to use metaphor. My point is people like yourself and Max last night are happy to see 50/60 of the population living in penury when one percent hold all the cards. My point is the super wealthy don't need money whose primary function is to be counted. They are not reinvesting the surplus.
Historically the British aristocracy was smart enough to realise the importance of keeping the middle and working classes content by making small concessions. The French and Russian aristocracy never quite understood this. Our techno-oligarchs need to learn quickly before the tumbrils roll.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
Have I ever suggested that the UK welfare state is not expensive and overburdens the middle income tax payer? No I haven't.
What I said in a nutshell is if you are going to ensure the poorest are even poorer you need to offer them a way out.
I would much prefer as Robert suggested people are given the opportunity to make their own way in life.
What is the point of Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg owning everything and the rest of us living in the gutter?
The argument isn't about closing libraries in Wolverhampton, it is about overhauling the current capitalist system.
The three very wealthy men named all derive that wealth from shares in companies they founded, and worked bloody hard at for decades before they ever made a profit.
The problem isn’t a few rich people, it’s governments robbing Peter to pay Paul, and their being enough Pauls to keep voting for the handouts.
UK government also hasn’t balanced their budget since 2001, when one Gordon Brown divorced Prudence and turned on the spending taps hard. There’s now effectively a mortgage to be serviced, a debt of 2.5x annual government income of money that’s already been spent.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
Bezos owns about $240 billion. That is about 620,000 times more than the average person’s wealth in the UK. I’m sure Bezos worked bloody hard, maybe he worked 20 or 30 times as hard as the average person, but he didn’t work 620,000 times as hard. He isn’t that wealthy because of hard work. Nor is he 620,000 times as clever. He’s that wealthy because he got lucky. He was there at the right time that he was able to profit from the new technology of the World Wide Web, which other people had invented.
As for Argentina, inflation is currently running at 41%.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
47% of GB owned by wealthiest 10% 8% of GB owned by poorest 50%
Your figure of 43% was close, but I've based the above on the latest ONS figures, plus Advani and Tarrant corrections adding a few percent to the top 1% and top 10% which was missed from close-companies and equity, and undersampling.
Even without the corrections, it remains hideous. And when you factor in income, one can see that the poorest are working to make the wealthiest richer. So the issue of the welfare state is really obscuring the real steal and even if the Greens don't have a fully-fledged plan, only they are identifying the issue on the national level. The concern about the welfare state pales even more when we consider impending AI+robotics impacts on working. The wealthiest don't even actually need to work - that is the real welfare state, it's torrent-up not trickle-down. I'm not sure those of us in the lowest decile should be thankful for being thrown crumbs.
How is people keeping money they worked for in any sense a "steal"?
The real "steal" is taking vast amounts of money from those that earn it and giving it to those who sit on their arses all day, or can't be bothered to become more productive.
And, unsurprisingly, it is disastrous for everybody over time anyway. It rewards exactly those people who don't deserve it - the lazy and the unproductive, and penalises the achievers, and so it devastates economic growth. That the effects of reduced incentives aren't immediately visible doesn't make them any less real.
So it fails in the long run even on its own terms.
The wealthiest 1%, owning 10% of wealth; the wealthiest 10% owning 43%, is actually highly egalitarian, compared to most contemporary societies, and definitely compared to most past societies. Karl Marx would have been astonished by the spread of wealth down the social scale.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
Have I ever suggested that the UK welfare state is not expensive and overburdens the middle income tax payer? No I haven't.
What I said in a nutshell is if you are going to ensure the poorest are even poorer you need to offer them a way out.
I would much prefer as Robert suggested people are given the opportunity to make their own way in life.
What is the point of Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg owning everything and the rest of us living in the gutter?
The argument isn't about closing libraries in Wolverhampton, it is about overhauling the current capitalist system.
The three very wealthy men named all derive that wealth from shares in companies they founded, and worked bloody hard at for decades before they ever made a profit.
The problem isn’t a few rich people, it’s governments robbing Peter to pay Paul, and their being enough Pauls to keep voting for the handouts.
UK government also hasn’t balanced their budget since 2001, when one Gordon Brown divorced Prudence and turned on the spending taps hard. There’s now effectively a mortgage to be serviced, a debt of 2.5x annual government income of money that’s already been spent.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
Bezos owns about $240 billion. That is about 620,000 times more than the average person’s wealth in the UK. I’m sure Bezos worked bloody hard, maybe he worked 20 or 30 times as hard as the average person, but he didn’t work 620,000 times as hard. He isn’t that wealthy because of hard work. Nor is he 620,000 times as clever. He’s that wealthy because he got lucky. He was there at the right time that he was able to profit from the new technology of the World Wide Web, which other people had invented.
As for Argentina, inflation is currently running at 41%.
But equally, America needs to know that if they do persist, then Europe and others will take a new path: a reproachment to China. A partner to whom we offer respect and a role to replace America, in partnership for a new century.
My ideal outcome would be for every democracy not run by a crook or madman to team up to present a united front to not threaten China but to offer an alternative. So whilst Starmer is right to desire more cooperation with the EU we also need to look for much broader alliances with countries all round the world. America can be left to stew.
Problem is, democracies have a tendency to occasionally elect crooks and madmen.
Who would ally with us when it appears at least likely that our next leader will very much fit that particular bill?
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
Have I ever suggested that the UK welfare state is not expensive and overburdens the middle income tax payer? No I haven't.
What I said in a nutshell is if you are going to ensure the poorest are even poorer you need to offer them a way out.
I would much prefer as Robert suggested people are given the opportunity to make their own way in life.
What is the point of Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg owning everything and the rest of us living in the gutter?
The argument isn't about closing libraries in Wolverhampton, it is about overhauling the current capitalist system.
The three very wealthy men named all derive that wealth from shares in companies they founded, and worked bloody hard at for decades before they ever made a profit.
The problem isn’t a few rich people, it’s governments robbing Peter to pay Paul, and their being enough Pauls to keep voting for the handouts.
UK government also hasn’t balanced their budget since 2001, when one Gordon Brown divorced Prudence and turned on the spending taps hard. There’s now effectively a mortgage to be serviced, a debt of 2.5x annual government income of money that’s already been spent.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
I used Musk etc as an easy to use metaphor. My point is people like yourself and Max last night are happy to see 50/60 of the population living in penury when one percent hold all the cards. My point is the super wealthy don't need money whose primary function is to be counted. They are not reinvesting the surplus.
It’s not a fixed pie though, the entrepreneurs are growing the pie and making a larger economy. Their billions are not bank account balances, they’re the theoretical stock market valuations of their companies.
Their companies are also in yours and my pension funds, so it’s in everyone’s interests that they succeed.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
Have I ever suggested that the UK welfare state is not expensive and overburdens the middle income tax payer? No I haven't.
What I said in a nutshell is if you are going to ensure the poorest are even poorer you need to offer them a way out.
I would much prefer as Robert suggested people are given the opportunity to make their own way in life.
What is the point of Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg owning everything and the rest of us living in the gutter?
The argument isn't about closing libraries in Wolverhampton, it is about overhauling the current capitalist system.
The three very wealthy men named all derive that wealth from shares in companies they founded, and worked bloody hard at for decades before they ever made a profit.
The problem isn’t a few rich people, it’s governments robbing Peter to pay Paul, and their being enough Pauls to keep voting for the handouts.
UK government also hasn’t balanced their budget since 2001, when one Gordon Brown divorced Prudence and turned on the spending taps hard. There’s now effectively a mortgage to be serviced, a debt of 2.5x annual government income of money that’s already been spent.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
I used Musk etc as an easy to use metaphor. My point is people like yourself and Max last night are happy to see 50/60 of the population living in penury when one percent hold all the cards. My point is the super wealthy don't need money whose primary function is to be counted. They are not reinvesting the surplus.
It’s not a fixed pie though, the entrepreneurs are growing the pie and making a larger economy. Their billions are not bank account balances, they’re the theoretical stock market valuations of their companies.
Their companies are also in yours and my pension funds, so it’s in everyone’s interests that they succeed.
However, something is different now, compared with even a couple of decades ago.
My tentative guess is that the issue is tech titans who really do have more money than they know what to do with. Bezos and Zuckerberg had one brilliant profitable idea, that generates piles of cash, but no second act. So they destroy value with things like the Metaverse or gen-AI for want of anything better. Musk has done better, but not all of his hits have been home runs.
Part of how capitalism works is making lots of small bets so that some get lucky and win big. It's why state winner-picking capitalism can be tricky. But the same problem arises if too much capital is in too few private hands.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
‘ So Jenrick's Reform will be keeping the Blairite monetary policy framework (BoE Independence), the Cameroon fiscal policy framework (OBR) & at least 1 of the 2 key fiscal burdens (triple lock & NHS spend). Basically, Reform now rejects almost any reform of macroeconomic policy.’
One of them, I forecast, will make the semi finals.
You evidently didn't see Japan play the other night. They are genuine contenders.
Performances in friendlies where up to 11 subs are allowed and the players have other concerns (not getting injured) etc may not be the best guide. Inthink Japan are decent but that was not a good England performance.
I think it's time to cut £40bn from welfare and build a properly independent nuclear deterrent and properly fund defence. We can no longer rely on the US regardless of who is in the White House. The Trident programme made sense in an era when the UK and US were inseparable in terms of our global aims but now that is no longer the case. We cannot be beholden to what I would term as an informal ally for such a crucial part of our defence posture.
It's a truly sad state of affairs when the US and UK can no longer say they have the same outlook on the world regardless of who occupies No 10 or the White House. That partnership has been the cornerstone of the post war consensus and now it seems to be broken beyond repair. I think America is going to quickly realise it's a cold world out there and even though it maintains defence primacy, life without friends and allies is much tougher than MAGA and other isolationists realise. Thralldom may suit some countries but I think we need to start planning for a world in which we will need to defend our own interests without an implicit guarantee from American military might.
Welfare and pensions are not affordable in this new era and both will need substantial cuts.
On you final point we can't just let the old, the infirmed, the disabled, the poor to live in abject poverty. We have to offer voluntary euthanasia like we would an old dog or cat at the end of their life.
Alternatively the World and more specifically Britain could operate a society where the top one percent don't own 90% of wealth, or whatever the figure is these days.
The peasants need to revolt like they did in the French, the Russian and the Iranian revolutions. The outcomes of each may not have been optimal after the revolutions but your remedy is no better.
The UK has one of the biggest welfare states in the world and the top 10% only own 43% of UK wealth not 90% (whereas in the US now the top 10% own 67% of the nation's wealth)
Have I ever suggested that the UK welfare state is not expensive and overburdens the middle income tax payer? No I haven't.
What I said in a nutshell is if you are going to ensure the poorest are even poorer you need to offer them a way out.
I would much prefer as Robert suggested people are given the opportunity to make their own way in life.
What is the point of Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg owning everything and the rest of us living in the gutter?
The argument isn't about closing libraries in Wolverhampton, it is about overhauling the current capitalist system.
The three very wealthy men named all derive that wealth from shares in companies they founded, and worked bloody hard at for decades before they ever made a profit.
The problem isn’t a few rich people, it’s governments robbing Peter to pay Paul, and their being enough Pauls to keep voting for the handouts.
UK government also hasn’t balanced their budget since 2001, when one Gordon Brown divorced Prudence and turned on the spending taps hard. There’s now effectively a mortgage to be serviced, a debt of 2.5x annual government income of money that’s already been spent.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
Bezos owns about $240 billion. That is about 620,000 times more than the average person’s wealth in the UK. I’m sure Bezos worked bloody hard, maybe he worked 20 or 30 times as hard as the average person, but he didn’t work 620,000 times as hard. He isn’t that wealthy because of hard work. Nor is he 620,000 times as clever. He’s that wealthy because he got lucky. He was there at the right time that he was able to profit from the new technology of the World Wide Web, which other people had invented.
As for Argentina, inflation is currently running at 41%.
It’s an interesting argument. How much should any job pay? Is it about how hard you work? Or how clever you are? Or the skills you possess? Or your ability to do something few can do? For instance footballers at the highest level get ludicrous salaries. Yet millions of people watch them and fund it. I watched our extension being built by trades. They worked hard all day for a decent salary but orders of magnitude less than Harry Kane gets. And what of academics? Highly qualified, clever (usually). Yet our salariesn are typically well below those on PB who are lawyers or work/worked in finance. Is that fair?
Comments
However, watch it be incredibly popular.
I can imagine Iran’s intelligence agencies fixing somebody to negotiate who has no actual power or status to string Trump along pretending to be Pezeshkian, and because Trump and his acolytes are really thick and believe they are amazingly clever being totally deceived.
Meanwhile the President (who has no control of the armed forces) is wondering ‘WTF is this guy smoking? I’m not talking to him.’
And meanwhile the TACO is delayed to the great economic advantage of the IRGC.
He’s completely wrong, but that’s a different problem.
Things have been quiet on the Jenrick front on PB, has his fan club dispersed?
The real "steal" is taking vast amounts of money from those that earn it and giving it to those who sit on their arses all day, or can't be bothered to become more productive.
And, unsurprisingly, it is disastrous for everybody over time anyway. It rewards exactly those people who don't deserve it - the lazy and the unproductive, and penalises the achievers, and so it devastates economic growth. That the effects of reduced incentives aren't immediately visible doesn't make them any less real.
So it fails in the long run even on its own terms.
Came the reply: ‘They are people who don’t need to work because they have the same status in society as their parents.’
‘Oh,’ said the Yank. ‘We have people like that in the States too, but we call them tramps or hobos.’
The knock on would be lower levels of costs for the NHS/Local Authorities as they wouldn't have the health and care costs?
Civilians in non-Hezbollah areas of Beirut taking the hit now. Maybe he just doesn't like Muslims
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg07j6yeweo
‘ So Jenrick's Reform will be keeping the Blairite monetary policy framework (BoE Independence), the Cameroon fiscal policy framework (OBR) & at least 1 of the 2 key fiscal burdens (triple lock & NHS spend). Basically, Reform now rejects almost any reform of macroeconomic policy.’
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2039456660620468276?s=61
'Oh,' said the Yank. 'We have someone like that in the States too, but we elected him President'.
The problem isn’t a few rich people, it’s governments robbing Peter to pay Paul, and their being enough Pauls to keep voting for the handouts.
UK government also hasn’t balanced their budget since 2001, when one Gordon Brown divorced Prudence and turned on the spending taps hard. There’s now effectively a mortgage to be serviced, a debt of 2.5x annual government income of money that’s already been spent.
The only solution is a serious reduction in the scope of government and serious cuts in what remains. See Javier Millei in Argentina, for perhaps the only recent example of a large economy doing what’s required without the IMF getting involved.
https://ig.ft.com/chancellor-game/
What we really need is more detailed polling on income. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are in the lead among UC and PIP claimants, as well as council house tenants. The real battle will be with the Conservatives for pensioners.
Vance is using to the "white churches of Virginia (or New England)" myth to appeal to the Evangelicalism for which he expressed scorn for when he became a Roman Catholic; he called Evangelicalism "unsatisfying", and he was right if it is the unthinking Born Again template, limited to the agenda moulded by Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority fifty years ago, made up of a projected personal morality, "but never mind the wars or the wealth".
There's also an underlying cultural appeal to the pre-Civil War architecture, embodying a romanticised past.
JDV needs both the White Evangelical and Integralist Roman Catholic wings to keep his goose flying.
NEW THREAD
As for Argentina, inflation is currently running at 41%.
Who would ally with us when it appears at least likely that our next leader will very much fit that particular bill?
Their companies are also in yours and my pension funds, so it’s in everyone’s interests that they succeed.
My tentative guess is that the issue is tech titans who really do have more money than they know what to do with. Bezos and Zuckerberg had one brilliant profitable idea, that generates piles of cash, but no second act. So they destroy value with things like the Metaverse or gen-AI for want of anything better. Musk has done better, but not all of his hits have been home runs.
Part of how capitalism works is making lots of small bets so that some get lucky and win big. It's why state winner-picking capitalism can be tricky. But the same problem arises if too much capital is in too few private hands.
And what of academics? Highly qualified, clever (usually). Yet our salariesn are typically well below those on PB who are lawyers or work/worked in finance. Is that fair?