Can't see Reform doing that well in !Birmingham!, but who knows. My Dad is up tomorrow, his ward (Coventry) was held in the cataclysmic 1995 locals (Conservative) so we will see
PollCheck are currently predicting that Reform will be the largest faction in Birmingham with 24 of the 101 seats.
Can't see Reform doing that well in !Birmingham!, but who knows. My Dad is up tomorrow, his ward (Coventry) was held in the cataclysmic 1995 locals (Conservative) so we will see
PollCheck are currently predicting that Reform will be the largest faction in Birmingham with 24 of the 101 seats.
Can't see Reform doing that well in !Birmingham!, but who knows. My Dad is up tomorrow, his ward (Coventry) was held in the cataclysmic 1995 locals (Conservative) so we will see
PollCheck are currently predicting that Reform will be the largest faction in Birmingham with 24 of the 101 seats.
It will be fascinating to see how close the actual result is to this prediction. While the methodology is pretty sound, it can't take into account the effect of local campaigning or local issues such as the bin strike, which would imply an even worse result for Labour. It also struggles to deal with the large number of independents.
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
If Patel claims the entire story is fictitious, what is the purpose of a leak enquiry ?
The FBI has launched a criminal leak investigation focusing on Atlantic magazine journalist Sarah Fitzpatrick, who wrote that deeply unflattering account of Kash Patel's work habits.
Does the winner of this have to actually play Arsenal for the CL? I mean it seems a slightly embarrassing formality.
The gulf between these two sides and Arsenal is a chasm
Wonderful to watch
It really isn't "a chasm"
Both these teams play in totally uncompetitve leagues. PSG are on course to easily win their 8th title in 10 years in France, Bayern are on course to VERY easily win their 9th title in 10 years. These aren't even leagues any more, they are sad parades for PSG and Bayern. It is a real problem, and why they wanted the Super League to happen
By contrast Arsenal are just about grinding a very close victory in a vastly more competitive league, where any of five or six could win, and almost every team has money, and every match is competitive and physical. Arsenal are knackered in comparison to the French and German teams. Yet they still might win the final against PSG (or Bayern). The UCL often produces surprise winners
That explains the success of Scottish teams in Europe
The Old Firm really should join the EPL - or work their way up from the Championship or whatever
It would be great for all - fans, football, English football, Scottish football, European football - because Celtic and Rangers are meant to be big clubs. They have massive passionate crowds who sing excellent songs
The only people that might complain are the owners of the biggest English clubs, who would not like the extra competition, but they have enough money, they can cope
Imagine Rangers v Liverpool or Spurs, Celtic v City or Chelsea. They would, in a few years, be cracking matches, once Rangers and Celtic have benefited from EPL money and gotten good teams. And ultimately it would strengthen, even further, the EPL, and make it more dramatic and colourful
Why should the second and third best teams in Scotland join, and not the team that is above them in the table?
Perhaps they should have a play off in Scotland every year, to see who gets the remarkable honour of playing in England the following year
Can't see Reform doing that well in !Birmingham!, but who knows. My Dad is up tomorrow, his ward (Coventry) was held in the cataclysmic 1995 locals (Conservative) so we will see
PollCheck are currently predicting that Reform will be the largest faction in Birmingham with 24 of the 101 seats.
Can't see Reform doing that well in !Birmingham!, but who knows. My Dad is up tomorrow, his ward (Coventry) was held in the cataclysmic 1995 locals (Conservative) so we will see
PollCheck are currently predicting that Reform will be the largest faction in Birmingham with 24 of the 101 seats.
Does the winner of this have to actually play Arsenal for the CL? I mean it seems a slightly embarrassing formality.
The gulf between these two sides and Arsenal is a chasm
Wonderful to watch
But what if Citeh do chase down Arsenal for the PL title, and yet Arsenal as underdogs go on to win the Champions League?
Guardiola would change places with Arteta in an instant.
Guardiola really REALLY wants to win the CL, the one trophy eluding him. Yet he is winning the PL so regularly that you wonder whether he cares much about it anymore.
If Patel claims the entire story is fictitious, what is the purpose of a leak enquiry ?
The FBI has launched a criminal leak investigation focusing on Atlantic magazine journalist Sarah Fitzpatrick, who wrote that deeply unflattering account of Kash Patel's work habits.
Whilst there's a lot of focus on Labour's collapse in Metros, the figures on Pollcheck for the Tories in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex make grim reading.
Lose 49 of 50 in Norfolk. 45 of 49 in Essex. And all 42 in Suffolk.
Much like the county elections last year, not much of a surprise given the Tories are polling half the 36% NEV they got in 2021 when the counties were last up. The districts and London boroughs will be a bit better for them as Labour won the NEV when they were last up in 2022
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
Ironically Starmer is banking on an EU reset to save his job .
With speeches laying out much closer ties . He should have gone further originally and not waited till the removal men were on the way to No 10.
Quite right. He;'s never had the courage to go the whole way on anything. That's why so few have respect or affection for him. What does 'getting closer to the EU' even mean? He should have said 'Rejoin' when he had the numbers and support to do it. All I know about his EU policy are the things he WONT do. No Single Market No Customs Union. The mans a soggy dishcloth
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
But the money in the US is all going to, like, 15 people.
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
But the money in the US is all going to, like, 15 people.
Does the winner of this have to actually play Arsenal for the CL? I mean it seems a slightly embarrassing formality.
The gulf between these two sides and Arsenal is a chasm
Wonderful to watch
But what if Citeh do chase down Arsenal for the PL title, and yet Arsenal as underdogs go on to win the Champions League?
Guardiola would change places with Arteta in an instant.
Guardiola really REALLY wants to win the CL, the one trophy eluding him. Yet he is winning the PL so regularly that you wonder whether he cares much about it anymore.
Eluding him?? He won it 3 years ago and twice with Barca.
If Patel claims the entire story is fictitious, what is the purpose of a leak enquiry ?
The FBI has launched a criminal leak investigation focusing on Atlantic magazine journalist Sarah Fitzpatrick, who wrote that deeply unflattering account of Kash Patel's work habits.
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
But the money in the US is all going to, like, 15 people.
Though median house prices in the UK are higher than the US on some measures, especially in London and the home counties
That URL tackles the fact that Americans have to pay for healthcare. To do this, it says, “for the significant majority of [US] full time employees, health care insurance is something they gain from their employer.” Thus, it argues, they don’t have any costs. But it fails to mention these people still typically have out of pocket healthcare expenses as well, so that’s misleading.
Moreover, https://www.william-russell.com/blog/health-insurance-usa-cost/ notes that only 12% of Americans have 100% of their health insurance covered by their employer. The average US employee pays 22% of their insurance costs… plus there are the out of pocket expenses I mentioned.
So, really, this doesn’t give me the impression that the Adam Smith Institute is being particularly honest.
Whilst there's a lot of focus on Labour's collapse in Metros, the figures on Pollcheck for the Tories in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex make grim reading.
Lose 49 of 50 in Norfolk. 45 of 49 in Essex. And all 42 in Suffolk.
Much like the county elections last year, not much of a surprise given the Tories are polling half the 36% NEV they got in 2021 when the counties were last up. The districts and London boroughs will be a bit better for them as Labour won the NEV when they were last up in 2022
It may not be much of a surprise for thee and me. But I reckon the results will come as a huge shock to all those who pay little attention.
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
But the money in the US is all going to, like, 15 people.
Though median house prices in the UK are higher than the US on some measures, especially in London and the home counties
That URL tackles the fact that Americans have to pay for healthcare. To do this, it says, “for the significant majority of [US] full time employees, health care insurance is something they gain from their employer.” Thus, it argues, they don’t have any costs. But it fails to mention these people still typically have out of pocket healthcare expenses as well, so that’s misleading.
Moreover, https://www.william-russell.com/blog/health-insurance-usa-cost/ notes that only 12% of Americans have 100% of their health insurance covered by their employer. The average US employee pays 22% of their insurance costs… plus there are the out of pocket expenses I mentioned.
So, really, this doesn’t give me the impression that the Adam Smith Institute is being particularly honest.
Yes we get universal public healthcare but we also pay for it through taxes and with less choice than insurance funded healthcare
Whilst there's a lot of focus on Labour's collapse in Metros, the figures on Pollcheck for the Tories in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex make grim reading.
Lose 49 of 50 in Norfolk. 45 of 49 in Essex. And all 42 in Suffolk.
Much like the county elections last year, not much of a surprise given the Tories are polling half the 36% NEV they got in 2021 when the counties were last up. The districts and London boroughs will be a bit better for them as Labour won the NEV when they were last up in 2022
It may not be much of a surprise for thee and me. But I reckon the results will come as a huge shock to all those who pay little attention.
I doubt it, most voters are expecting Reform to win tomorrow as they did last year
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
But the money in the US is all going to, like, 15 people.
Though median house prices in the UK are higher than the US on some measures, especially in London and the home counties
That URL tackles the fact that Americans have to pay for healthcare. To do this, it says, “for the significant majority of [US] full time employees, health care insurance is something they gain from their employer.” Thus, it argues, they don’t have any costs. But it fails to mention these people still typically have out of pocket healthcare expenses as well, so that’s misleading.
Moreover, https://www.william-russell.com/blog/health-insurance-usa-cost/ notes that only 12% of Americans have 100% of their health insurance covered by their employer. The average US employee pays 22% of their insurance costs… plus there are the out of pocket expenses I mentioned.
So, really, this doesn’t give me the impression that the Adam Smith Institute is being particularly honest.
TIL. Despite having a doctorate in neuroscience, Mayim Bialik took the role of Amy Farrah-Fowler in the Big Bang Theory primarily because her medical insurance was about to run out.
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
But the money in the US is all going to, like, 15 people.
Though median house prices in the UK are higher than the US on some measures, especially in London and the home counties
That URL tackles the fact that Americans have to pay for healthcare. To do this, it says, “for the significant majority of [US] full time employees, health care insurance is something they gain from their employer.” Thus, it argues, they don’t have any costs. But it fails to mention these people still typically have out of pocket healthcare expenses as well, so that’s misleading.
Moreover, https://www.william-russell.com/blog/health-insurance-usa-cost/ notes that only 12% of Americans have 100% of their health insurance covered by their employer. The average US employee pays 22% of their insurance costs… plus there are the out of pocket expenses I mentioned.
So, really, this doesn’t give me the impression that the Adam Smith Institute is being particularly honest.
As an example, my American friend had to pay around $600 last year for vaccinations to travel to Brazil, as they weren't covered by insurance. Mine cost £75 because only one wasn't free under the NHS
Can somebody explain the fascination with Katie Lam? Some fellow PBers worship her. The press promote her as an (the?) heir to Thatcher. I’m at a loss to explain or understand her appeal. Im not sure that I’ve ever heard her speak.
Now don’t all rush to condemn me for ignorance or naïveté. I hold multiple doctorates, run multiple businesses and come from a political background. I just do not understand the so-called appeal of Lam. Explain it to me in simple terms.
The media and PB are desperate for another Thatcher. Katie Lam is currently the closest. Therefore, said media and PB contributors are bigging up Katie Lam.
"...OK, not that anyone asked, but let me just explain why my takes re: Tesla stans are what they are and why they're so pointed. I ended up in conversation with someone who is a pretty big deal in Tesla circles. Had influence with Elon etc. He didn't know the words "Alpitronic Hypercharger"..."
Can somebody explain the fascination with Katie Lam? Some fellow PBers worship her. The press promote her as an (the?) heir to Thatcher. I’m at a loss to explain or understand her appeal. Im not sure that I’ve ever heard her speak.
Now don’t all rush to condemn me for ignorance or naïveté. I hold multiple doctorates, run multiple businesses and come from a political background. I just do not understand the so-called appeal of Lam. Explain it to me in simple terms.
The media and PB are desperate for another Thatcher. Katie Lam is currently the closest. Therefore, said media and PB contributors are bigging up Katie Lam.
Some pollsters are going to look silly with their Scottish predictions, come Friday. More in Common predict 43 SNP MSPs, Ipsos 54, Find Out Now 65, Norstat 55, Survation 60
Some pollsters are going to look silly with their Scottish predictions, come Friday. More in Common predict 43 SNP MSPs, Ipsos 54, Find Out Now 65, Norstat 55, Survation 60
Well, for the observer it makes it more exciting at least.
Some pollsters are going to look silly with their Scottish predictions, come Friday. More in Common predict 43 SNP MSPs, Ipsos 54, Find Out Now 65, Norstat 55, Survation 60
If 10 seats are within the margin of error - what, 3.3%? - then not so much. Generaaly agreed there are quite a number of seats where the winner is not obvious currently.
Green Party Leader @ZackPolanski admits he wrongly claimed the Golders Green terror suspect was handcuffed, saying it is important to be clear when he makes a mistake
But, if you look at that diagram, you will see that it is actually a set of related systems. For the record: I am enrolled in a Medicare Advantage program (Part C). My particular plan gives me vision and dental benefits, as well as coverage for doctors and hospitals.
The next largest is Medicaid, for poor people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid Except that's not a single program either; there 52 different programs (50 states, plus Puerto and DC).
Millions of people are "dual-eligible", on both Medicare and Medicaid.
There are other federal programs, and some state programs. And there are thousands and thousands of private employment-linked insurance programs, ranging from what are often called Cadillac programs, to what I would call skate board programs.
I am not, repeat not, saying this to defend our systems, but just to caution you against talking about a single American health care system.
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
But the money in the US is all going to, like, 15 people.
Though median house prices in the UK are higher than the US on some measures, especially in London and the home counties
That URL tackles the fact that Americans have to pay for healthcare. To do this, it says, “for the significant majority of [US] full time employees, health care insurance is something they gain from their employer.” Thus, it argues, they don’t have any costs. But it fails to mention these people still typically have out of pocket healthcare expenses as well, so that’s misleading.
Moreover, https://www.william-russell.com/blog/health-insurance-usa-cost/ notes that only 12% of Americans have 100% of their health insurance covered by their employer. The average US employee pays 22% of their insurance costs… plus there are the out of pocket expenses I mentioned.
So, really, this doesn’t give me the impression that the Adam Smith Institute is being particularly honest.
As an example, my American friend had to pay around $600 last year for vaccinations to travel to Brazil, as they weren't covered by insurance. Mine cost £75 because only one wasn't free under the NHS
Bit of a tangent to your point, but this (unusually) is an example of where even the US system is better than ours.
Assuming the $600 is a roughly accurate actual cost of the jabs (although knowing the US, half of it is probably the insurance premium for the doctor administering the jabs), and also assuming these aren't jabs you should have in the UK anyway, why on earth is the UK tax payers forking out for them? They should surely be one of the costs of going to Brazil, just like the plane ticket, or the hotels.
One of the reasons the UK government is broke is that we're forever subsidising all sorts of random stuff that people should be paying for directly.
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
But the money in the US is all going to, like, 15 people.
Though median house prices in the UK are higher than the US on some measures, especially in London and the home counties
That URL tackles the fact that Americans have to pay for healthcare. To do this, it says, “for the significant majority of [US] full time employees, health care insurance is something they gain from their employer.” Thus, it argues, they don’t have any costs. But it fails to mention these people still typically have out of pocket healthcare expenses as well, so that’s misleading.
Moreover, https://www.william-russell.com/blog/health-insurance-usa-cost/ notes that only 12% of Americans have 100% of their health insurance covered by their employer. The average US employee pays 22% of their insurance costs… plus there are the out of pocket expenses I mentioned.
So, really, this doesn’t give me the impression that the Adam Smith Institute is being particularly honest.
As an example, my American friend had to pay around $600 last year for vaccinations to travel to Brazil, as they weren't covered by insurance. Mine cost £75 because only one wasn't free under the NHS
Bit of a tangent to your point, but this (unusually) is an example of where even the US system is better than ours.
Assuming the $600 is a roughly accurate actual cost of the jabs (although knowing the US, half of it is probably the insurance premium for the doctor administering the jabs), and also assuming these aren't jabs you should have in the UK anyway, why on earth is the UK tax payers forking out for them? They should surely be one of the costs of going to Brazil, just like the plane ticket, or the hotels.
One of the reasons the UK government is broke is that we're forever subsidising all sorts of random stuff that people should be paying for directly.
Presumably because we don't want people coming back with tropical diseases and spreading them around...
Though perhaps the country wouldn't let them in without the certificate of vaccination?
But, if you look at that diagram, you will see that it is actually a set of related systems. For the record: I am enrolled in a Medicare Advantage program (Part C). My particular plan gives me vision and dental benefits, as well as coverage for doctors and hospitals.
The next largest is Medicaid, for poor people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid Except that's not a single program either; there 52 different programs (50 states, plus Puerto and DC).
Millions of people are "dual-eligible", on both Medicare and Medicaid.
There are other federal programs, and some state programs. And there are thousands and thousands of private employment-linked insurance programs, ranging from what are often called Cadillac programs, to what I would call skate board programs.
I am not, repeat not, saying this to defend our systems, but just to caution you against talking about a single American health care system.
All that is just part of why your system is such a mess, and do difficult to navigate for a large number of people, isn't it ?
It also lands itself to divide and rule tactics - for example Trump's recent attempts to gut veterans' healthcare - since there's less incentive for those not in the affected group to fight back.
For the well off and/ir those with ample insurance, it can provide some of the best healthcare in the world; for others, it fails them far worse than our NHS at its most rickety.
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
But the money in the US is all going to, like, 15 people.
Though median house prices in the UK are higher than the US on some measures, especially in London and the home counties
That URL tackles the fact that Americans have to pay for healthcare. To do this, it says, “for the significant majority of [US] full time employees, health care insurance is something they gain from their employer.” Thus, it argues, they don’t have any costs. But it fails to mention these people still typically have out of pocket healthcare expenses as well, so that’s misleading.
Moreover, https://www.william-russell.com/blog/health-insurance-usa-cost/ notes that only 12% of Americans have 100% of their health insurance covered by their employer. The average US employee pays 22% of their insurance costs… plus there are the out of pocket expenses I mentioned.
So, really, this doesn’t give me the impression that the Adam Smith Institute is being particularly honest.
As an example, my American friend had to pay around $600 last year for vaccinations to travel to Brazil, as they weren't covered by insurance. Mine cost £75 because only one wasn't free under the NHS
Bit of a tangent to your point, but this (unusually) is an example of where even the US system is better than ours.
Assuming the $600 is a roughly accurate actual cost of the jabs (although knowing the US, half of it is probably the insurance premium for the doctor administering the jabs), and also assuming these aren't jabs you should have in the UK anyway, why on earth is the UK tax payers forking out for them? They should surely be one of the costs of going to Brazil, just like the plane ticket, or the hotels.
One of the reasons the UK government is broke is that we're forever subsidising all sorts of random stuff that people should be paying for directly.
Arguably because vaccination is a public good, which can help prevent the spread of disease*, whose benefits extend beyond the particular individual who is vaccinated ?
*the extent to which this is true varies between vaccines.
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
But the money in the US is all going to, like, 15 people.
Though median house prices in the UK are higher than the US on some measures, especially in London and the home counties
That URL tackles the fact that Americans have to pay for healthcare. To do this, it says, “for the significant majority of [US] full time employees, health care insurance is something they gain from their employer.” Thus, it argues, they don’t have any costs. But it fails to mention these people still typically have out of pocket healthcare expenses as well, so that’s misleading.
Moreover, https://www.william-russell.com/blog/health-insurance-usa-cost/ notes that only 12% of Americans have 100% of their health insurance covered by their employer. The average US employee pays 22% of their insurance costs… plus there are the out of pocket expenses I mentioned.
So, really, this doesn’t give me the impression that the Adam Smith Institute is being particularly honest.
As an example, my American friend had to pay around $600 last year for vaccinations to travel to Brazil, as they weren't covered by insurance. Mine cost £75 because only one wasn't free under the NHS
Bit of a tangent to your point, but this (unusually) is an example of where even the US system is better than ours.
Assuming the $600 is a roughly accurate actual cost of the jabs (although knowing the US, half of it is probably the insurance premium for the doctor administering the jabs), and also assuming these aren't jabs you should have in the UK anyway, why on earth is the UK tax payers forking out for them? They should surely be one of the costs of going to Brazil, just like the plane ticket, or the hotels.
One of the reasons the UK government is broke is that we're forever subsidising all sorts of random stuff that people should be paying for directly.
For Brazil its only typhoid, cholera and Hep A that that are above the routine UK vaccinations and these are cheap and done to prevent outbreaks from returning visitors.
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
But the money in the US is all going to, like, 15 people.
Though median house prices in the UK are higher than the US on some measures, especially in London and the home counties
That URL tackles the fact that Americans have to pay for healthcare. To do this, it says, “for the significant majority of [US] full time employees, health care insurance is something they gain from their employer.” Thus, it argues, they don’t have any costs. But it fails to mention these people still typically have out of pocket healthcare expenses as well, so that’s misleading.
Moreover, https://www.william-russell.com/blog/health-insurance-usa-cost/ notes that only 12% of Americans have 100% of their health insurance covered by their employer. The average US employee pays 22% of their insurance costs… plus there are the out of pocket expenses I mentioned.
So, really, this doesn’t give me the impression that the Adam Smith Institute is being particularly honest.
As an example, my American friend had to pay around $600 last year for vaccinations to travel to Brazil, as they weren't covered by insurance. Mine cost £75 because only one wasn't free under the NHS
Bit of a tangent to your point, but this (unusually) is an example of where even the US system is better than ours.
Assuming the $600 is a roughly accurate actual cost of the jabs (although knowing the US, half of it is probably the insurance premium for the doctor administering the jabs), and also assuming these aren't jabs you should have in the UK anyway, why on earth is the UK tax payers forking out for them? They should surely be one of the costs of going to Brazil, just like the plane ticket, or the hotels.
One of the reasons the UK government is broke is that we're forever subsidising all sorts of random stuff that people should be paying for directly.
For Brazil its only typhoid, cholera and Hep A that that are above the routine UK vaccinations and these are cheap and done to prevent outbreaks from returning visitors.
Vaccines (and especially those which are off patent) are among the most cost effective health interventions that exist.
The net benefit to society (and potential savings to the NHS by preventing disease) are large in comparison to the costs.
It's a weak basis on which to attack our system (there are better ones, and better healthcare systems than those of the US to use as comparators).
@rcs1000 are you planning to resolve the frequent site down errors please?
Is the problem with posting (as some people have) or with viewing the main site.
I'm planning a server migration this weekend, which will hopefully solve the posting issue.
It’s a Vanilla issue. Loads of timeouts, page not found errors, the occasional Cloudflare error page saying that the Cloudlflare-to-Vanilla link is down.
The double postings happen when you press the post comment button and it produces an error (but does actually post the comment), so people naturally hit post again.
All of this is on vf.pb.com, not on the main page, and has been happening for around a week now.
Best of luck to everyone here who’s standing, regardless of political affiliation.
It’s difficult enough to find people who want to be involved directly in polititics, with all that means for themselves and their families, so well done to those willing to put their head above the parapet. Local government especially is in a bad place right now, with little money and a lot of statutory duties, and a lot of the blame given to councils and councillors probably belongs elsewhere.
I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me.
A day may come when the courage of apparatchiks fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of regulatory obsession, but it is not this day.
An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of middle class bureaucrats comes crashing down, but it is not this day!
This day we fight!
By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men, women and those not very sure (which is perfectly okay of course) and fill in your forms with your appropriate pronouns!
@rcs1000 are you planning to resolve the frequent site down errors please?
Is the problem with posting (as some people have) or with viewing the main site.
I'm planning a server migration this weekend, which will hopefully solve the posting issue.
It’s a Vanilla issue. Loads of timeouts, page not found errors, the occasional Cloudflare error page saying that the Cloudlflare-to-Vanilla link is down.
The double postings happen when you press the post comment button and it produces an error (but does actually post the comment), so people naturally hit post again.
All of this is on vf.pb.com, not on the main page, and has been happening for around a week now.
And lots of ‘this page is not safe’ messages on my iPad
I think I’ll miss the early declarations. A shame as the build-up, rumours and first results are often the most exciting moments but with the results so spread out this year I can’t really justify staying up late when a lot of the action is tomorrow.
@rcs1000 are you planning to resolve the frequent site down errors please?
Is the problem with posting (as some people have) or with viewing the main site.
I'm planning a server migration this weekend, which will hopefully solve the posting issue.
It’s a Vanilla issue. Loads of timeouts, page not found errors, the occasional Cloudflare error page saying that the Cloudlflare-to-Vanilla link is down.
The double postings happen when you press the post comment button and it produces an error (but does actually post the comment), so people naturally hit post again.
All of this is on vf.pb.com, not on the main page, and has been happening for around a week now.
And lots of ‘this page is not safe’ messages on my iPad
I think that was just your iPad protecting you from Leon’s eugenics rants.
A friend of mine who works in rare books mentioned today everyone he knows is getting weird, big orders from the same buyer this week for "long tail books"—decades-old textbooks, private press niche history, unremarkable but rare titles just collecting dust.
I think I’ll miss the early declarations. A shame as the build-up, rumours and first results are often the most exciting moments but with the results so spread out this year I can’t really justify staying up late when a lot of the action is tomorrow.
I might catch an early night and get up early.
That's probably wise - the earlier results will be some smaller councils that elect by thirds, with the key London Borough results not coming through until the sun is ready to come up. I doubt the media election programmes will have much to talk about other than repetitive speculation.
But, if you look at that diagram, you will see that it is actually a set of related systems. For the record: I am enrolled in a Medicare Advantage program (Part C). My particular plan gives me vision and dental benefits, as well as coverage for doctors and hospitals.
The next largest is Medicaid, for poor people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid Except that's not a single program either; there 52 different programs (50 states, plus Puerto and DC).
Millions of people are "dual-eligible", on both Medicare and Medicaid.
There are other federal programs, and some state programs. And there are thousands and thousands of private employment-linked insurance programs, ranging from what are often called Cadillac programs, to what I would call skate board programs.
I am not, repeat not, saying this to defend our systems, but just to caution you against talking about a single American health care system.
And self funded healthcare in many cases. It's good to point out the different components of the American healthcare system but they are linked. Someone at various times may be on employer insurance, self funded Obamacare, no insurance, Medicaid and Medicare. One of the big problems with the American system is that it's almost all pay as you go, there's little concept of whole life insurance. The people who can afford healthcare tend to be the well off who are young, in work and healthy, and rarely need it. So you end up with a system that costs multiples of those in other countries with mediocre health outcomes.
Looks like Brum is set to get rid of the rubbish that's made their city hell to live in.
.
Villa Park being demolished ?
The Prince of Wales just crossed out your name on the OBE list... Still at least the Bluenoses won't be up to resume their perennial battle with relegation this year.
This is a bit awkward for the Thatcherite economists.
Britain has eight big North European neighbours. Of them Britain has, 1/ The weakest economy. 2/ The lowest taxes. 3/ The lowest marginal tax rate on labour at high incomes. The right should be less confident sneering at the idea of "taxing for growth". https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2051763318222659963
Try Switzerland, even lower taxes than the UK and higher gdp per capita than all those 8
The argument is that low taxes do not deliver better growth.
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
No it isn't, Switzerland has faster growth than its neighbours and us, as does uber low tax Singapore and the UAE and the US also has faster growth than higher tax the UK and most of Europe now
But the money in the US is all going to, like, 15 people.
Though median house prices in the UK are higher than the US on some measures, especially in London and the home counties
That URL tackles the fact that Americans have to pay for healthcare. To do this, it says, “for the significant majority of [US] full time employees, health care insurance is something they gain from their employer.” Thus, it argues, they don’t have any costs. But it fails to mention these people still typically have out of pocket healthcare expenses as well, so that’s misleading.
Moreover, https://www.william-russell.com/blog/health-insurance-usa-cost/ notes that only 12% of Americans have 100% of their health insurance covered by their employer. The average US employee pays 22% of their insurance costs… plus there are the out of pocket expenses I mentioned.
So, really, this doesn’t give me the impression that the Adam Smith Institute is being particularly honest.
As an example, my American friend had to pay around $600 last year for vaccinations to travel to Brazil, as they weren't covered by insurance. Mine cost £75 because only one wasn't free under the NHS
Bit of a tangent to your point, but this (unusually) is an example of where even the US system is better than ours.
Assuming the $600 is a roughly accurate actual cost of the jabs (although knowing the US, half of it is probably the insurance premium for the doctor administering the jabs), and also assuming these aren't jabs you should have in the UK anyway, why on earth is the UK tax payers forking out for them? They should surely be one of the costs of going to Brazil, just like the plane ticket, or the hotels.
One of the reasons the UK government is broke is that we're forever subsidising all sorts of random stuff that people should be paying for directly.
The open market hourly charge out rate of a nurse is probably £250 ish per hour. At that rate with the cost of the jab itself plus profit I would suggest that £300 would be reasonable.
I think I’ll miss the early declarations. A shame as the build-up, rumours and first results are often the most exciting moments but with the results so spread out this year I can’t really justify staying up late when a lot of the action is tomorrow.
I might catch an early night and get up early.
I really will miss an overnight count in Scotland tonight, and its really annoying it won't be yet again. I think that my favourite GE count will always be 1992 as events unfolded and blew the polling predictions out of the water and then discovering that the only seat the Conservatives gained that night was our constituency seat of Aberdeen South.
It was the first election Fitaloon and I walked down to the polling booth together after work and voted in after we got married and we did as it turn out both vote Conservative, ironically we never did get around to having the couples 'political conversation' about who we supported or planned to vote for up until during that GE campaign! So tough luck if one of us wanted to claim they had never kissed a Tory!
I think I’ll miss the early declarations. A shame as the build-up, rumours and first results are often the most exciting moments but with the results so spread out this year I can’t really justify staying up late when a lot of the action is tomorrow.
I might catch an early night and get up early.
I really will miss an overnight count in Scotland tonight, and its really annoying it won't be yet again. I think that my favourite GE count will always be 1992 as events unfolded and blew the polling predictions out of the water and then discovering that the only seat the Conservatives gained that night was our constituency seat of Aberdeen South.
It was the first election Fitaloon and I walked down to the polling booth together after work and voted in after we got married and we did as it turn out both vote Conservative, ironically we never did get around to having the couples 'political conversation' about who we supported or planned to vote for up until during that GE campaign! So tough luck if one of us wanted to claim they had never kissed a Tory!
1997 probably my favourite. I was up for Portillo. A new day has dawned, has it not... innocent times. The first election my now wife (Only Living Girl?) and I experienced together. We watched the results on a portable telly in a friend's room at college. Yesterday she and I were delivering eve of poll leaflets in the neighbourhood hoping to fend off the Green menace.
Comments
Which is a very serious offence for a lawyer.
Only needs for the Tories to be a coupleof points ahed of opinion polling - shy Tories? - for them to be the biggest party.
Or Booker T. and the M.G.s ...
Eight neighbouring countries support the argument versus one not-quite neighbouring country against.
Seems to me that the argument is pretty conclusively proven.
Nice one Harry!
The FBI has launched a criminal leak investigation focusing on Atlantic magazine journalist Sarah Fitzpatrick, who wrote that deeply unflattering account of Kash Patel's work habits.
There is deep concern about this approach among some of the FBI agents.
https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/2052030643752649150
https://x.com/ekajcw/status/2052111317872296162?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Lose 49 of 50 in Norfolk. 45 of 49 in Essex. And all 42 in Suffolk.
But I still have them as favourites for 2029.
Saw a few UK-Jamaica combos too when I was there last week.
Guardiola would change places with Arteta in an instant.
Guardiola really REALLY wants to win the CL, the one trophy eluding him. Yet he is winning the PL so regularly that you wonder whether he cares much about it anymore.
https://bsky.app/profile/justinbaragona.bsky.social/post/3ml7nnpsjnc2r
With speeches laying out much closer ties . He should have gone further originally and not waited till the removal men were on the way to No 10.
Women's also. Got promoted on Monday.
We won't mention what happened to the other lot.
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/american-wages-are-higher-than-british-by-more-than-you-think.
Though median house prices in the UK are higher than the US on some measures, especially in London and the home counties
Moreover, https://www.william-russell.com/blog/health-insurance-usa-cost/ notes that only 12% of Americans have 100% of their health insurance covered by their employer. The average US employee pays 22% of their insurance costs… plus there are the out of pocket expenses I mentioned.
So, really, this doesn’t give me the impression that the Adam Smith Institute is being particularly honest.
But I reckon the results will come as a huge shock to all those who pay little attention.
🧵
https://bsky.app/profile/techconnectify.bsky.social/post/3mihxdt2bgk2y
More in Common predict 43 SNP MSPs,
Ipsos 54,
Find Out Now 65,
Norstat 55,
Survation 60
“I’m a human being. I’m fallible”
Green Party Leader @ZackPolanski admits he wrongly claimed the Golders Green terror suspect was handcuffed, saying it is important to be clear when he makes a mistake
The largest of these is Medicare, for older people and some people with disabilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)
But, if you look at that diagram, you will see that it is actually a set of related systems. For the record: I am enrolled in a Medicare Advantage program (Part C). My particular plan gives me vision and dental benefits, as well as coverage for doctors and hospitals.
The next largest is Medicaid, for poor people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
Except that's not a single program either; there 52 different programs (50 states, plus Puerto and DC).
Millions of people are "dual-eligible", on both Medicare and Medicaid.
Then there are two federal programs that are somewhat like your NHS, in that their workers are federal employees. One is for veterans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration.
And the other is for members of Indian tribes: https://www.ihs.gov/
There are other federal programs, and some state programs. And there are thousands and thousands of private employment-linked insurance programs, ranging from what are often called Cadillac programs, to what I would call skate board programs.
I am not, repeat not, saying this to defend our systems, but just to caution you against talking about a single American health care system.
Assuming the $600 is a roughly accurate actual cost of the jabs (although knowing the US, half of it is probably the insurance premium for the doctor administering the jabs), and also assuming these aren't jabs you should have in the UK anyway, why on earth is the UK tax payers forking out for them? They should surely be one of the costs of going to Brazil, just like the plane ticket, or the hotels.
One of the reasons the UK government is broke is that we're forever subsidising all sorts of random stuff that people should be paying for directly.
Though perhaps the country wouldn't let them in without the certificate of vaccination?
It also lands itself to divide and rule tactics - for example Trump's recent attempts to gut veterans' healthcare - since there's less incentive for those not in the affected group to fight back.
For the well off and/ir those with ample insurance, it can provide some of the best healthcare in the world; for others, it fails them far worse than our NHS at its most rickety.
*the extent to which this is true varies between vaccines.
https://www.nhs.uk/vaccinations/travel-vaccinations/travel-vaccination-advice/
For Brazil its only typhoid, cholera and Hep A that that are above the routine UK vaccinations and these are cheap and done to prevent outbreaks from returning visitors.
The net benefit to society (and potential savings to the NHS by preventing disease) are large in comparison to the costs.
It's a weak basis on which to attack our system (there are better ones, and better healthcare systems than those of the US to use as comparators).
The double postings happen when you press the post comment button and it produces an error (but does actually post the comment), so people naturally hit post again.
All of this is on vf.pb.com, not on the main page, and has been happening for around a week now.
Best of luck to everyone here who’s standing, regardless of political affiliation.
It’s difficult enough to find people who want to be involved directly in polititics, with all that means for themselves and their families, so well done to those willing to put their head above the parapet. Local government especially is in a bad place right now, with little money and a lot of statutory duties, and a lot of the blame given to councils and councillors probably belongs elsewhere.
My brothers.
I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me.
A day may come when the courage of apparatchiks fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of regulatory obsession, but it is not this day.
An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of middle class bureaucrats comes crashing down, but it is not this day!
This day we fight!
By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men, women and those not very sure (which is perfectly okay of course) and fill in your forms with your appropriate pronouns!
Still issues around bin collection though.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5867252-purported-epstein-suicide-note-released-by-judge/
*Trump was President at the time.
PS: Just a bit of fun. No rabbit holes here.
I might catch an early night and get up early.
Obviously AI, right?
https://x.com/PEWilliams_/status/2052178682509144371
Tom Turvey was hired by Anthropic to obtain all the books in the world
https://x.com/scrollvoid/status/2052204663202881724
Still at least the Bluenoses won't be up to resume their perennial battle with relegation this year.
NEW THREAD
It was the first election Fitaloon and I walked down to the polling booth together after work and voted in after we got married and we did as it turn out both vote Conservative, ironically we never did get around to having the couples 'political conversation' about who we supported or planned to vote for up until during that GE campaign! So tough luck if one of us wanted to claim they had never kissed a Tory!