@noscholar.bsky.social
It’s not even the right fight. They’d have to fight through the court system, only for the Supreme Court to say “We’ve already given our ruling on this. It doesn’t say what everyone thinks it does, but saying it again won’t change that. It’s up to Parliament to improve the law.”
December 3, 2025 at 3:15 PM
It’s not even the right fight. They’d have to fight through the court system, only for the Supreme Court to say “We’ve already given our ruling on this. It doesn’t say what everyone thinks it does, but saying it again won’t change that. It’s up to Parliament to improve the law.”
I agree that this needs to be fought.
I just don’t think the WI and Girl Guides are the right people to fight that fight.
I just don’t think the WI and Girl Guides are the right people to fight that fight.
December 3, 2025 at 3:15 PM
I agree that this needs to be fought.
I just don’t think the WI and Girl Guides are the right people to fight that fight.
I just don’t think the WI and Girl Guides are the right people to fight that fight.
I’m not sure they have many options.
Cave, shut down, or lengthy legal fight that bankrupts you even if you win.
Cave, shut down, or lengthy legal fight that bankrupts you even if you win.
December 3, 2025 at 12:13 PM
I’m not sure they have many options.
Cave, shut down, or lengthy legal fight that bankrupts you even if you win.
Cave, shut down, or lengthy legal fight that bankrupts you even if you win.
“Fix this” is the right framing, the current situation is broken regardless of anyone’s views.
December 3, 2025 at 11:29 AM
“Fix this” is the right framing, the current situation is broken regardless of anyone’s views.
I would guess it’s even more extreme than that if you consider all the people who live outside NYC but commute into it (so aren’t in the population stat but are at risk of being hit / trampled).
November 28, 2025 at 6:18 PM
I would guess it’s even more extreme than that if you consider all the people who live outside NYC but commute into it (so aren’t in the population stat but are at risk of being hit / trampled).
Have I got this right?
Instead of effectively cutting their salary in order to move it into a pension in a tax efficient way, people can actually cut their salary to move it into pension in a tax efficient way?
That doesn’t seem like it’ll take long to work around.
Instead of effectively cutting their salary in order to move it into a pension in a tax efficient way, people can actually cut their salary to move it into pension in a tax efficient way?
That doesn’t seem like it’ll take long to work around.
November 26, 2025 at 2:59 PM
Have I got this right?
Instead of effectively cutting their salary in order to move it into a pension in a tax efficient way, people can actually cut their salary to move it into pension in a tax efficient way?
That doesn’t seem like it’ll take long to work around.
Instead of effectively cutting their salary in order to move it into a pension in a tax efficient way, people can actually cut their salary to move it into pension in a tax efficient way?
That doesn’t seem like it’ll take long to work around.
Raw egg I guess?
Do you mix it into a smoothie? Or leave it as a blob? Does it start to congeal?
Do you mix it into a smoothie? Or leave it as a blob? Does it start to congeal?
November 26, 2025 at 11:03 AM
Raw egg I guess?
Do you mix it into a smoothie? Or leave it as a blob? Does it start to congeal?
Do you mix it into a smoothie? Or leave it as a blob? Does it start to congeal?
Please keep shovelling money into the furnace. Our products are so good that we’re actually scared about how dangerous they are!
But not so dangerous that they need regulating obviously.
Or good enough that they actually make any profit, so keep shovelling that money!
But not so dangerous that they need regulating obviously.
Or good enough that they actually make any profit, so keep shovelling that money!
November 24, 2025 at 5:45 PM
Please keep shovelling money into the furnace. Our products are so good that we’re actually scared about how dangerous they are!
But not so dangerous that they need regulating obviously.
Or good enough that they actually make any profit, so keep shovelling that money!
But not so dangerous that they need regulating obviously.
Or good enough that they actually make any profit, so keep shovelling that money!
Not any more!
That’s what the chemicals are doing!
That’s what the chemicals are doing!
November 17, 2025 at 9:39 AM
Not any more!
That’s what the chemicals are doing!
That’s what the chemicals are doing!
I mentioned it because there’s an idea out there that RPI is “inflation with housing”. It’s not, it’s just broken, even for that purpose.
I’m sure that wasn’t what you meant but I’ll take any opportunity to kick RPI.
I’m sure that wasn’t what you meant but I’ll take any opportunity to kick RPI.
November 17, 2025 at 9:01 AM
I mentioned it because there’s an idea out there that RPI is “inflation with housing”. It’s not, it’s just broken, even for that purpose.
I’m sure that wasn’t what you meant but I’ll take any opportunity to kick RPI.
I’m sure that wasn’t what you meant but I’ll take any opportunity to kick RPI.
That’s true. They should use CPI for those contracts and CPIH for the rare cases where housing costs matter (and for the headlines).
November 17, 2025 at 9:01 AM
That’s true. They should use CPI for those contracts and CPIH for the rare cases where housing costs matter (and for the headlines).
The problem with RPI isn’t that it tends to track higher than CPI, it’s that it’s just a bad measure.
> (RPI) … [has] been assessed against the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and found not to meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics
www.ons.gov.uk/economy/infl...
> (RPI) … [has] been assessed against the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and found not to meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics
www.ons.gov.uk/economy/infl...
Consumer Price Inflation (includes all 3 indices – CPIH, CPI and RPI) QMI - Office for National Statistics
www.ons.gov.uk
November 17, 2025 at 8:50 AM
The problem with RPI isn’t that it tends to track higher than CPI, it’s that it’s just a bad measure.
> (RPI) … [has] been assessed against the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and found not to meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics
www.ons.gov.uk/economy/infl...
> (RPI) … [has] been assessed against the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and found not to meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics
www.ons.gov.uk/economy/infl...
There’s a point where Labour’s policy choices move them into the “keep them out” category, and the tactical voting question becomes “who is best placed to beat Lab/Con/Ref?”
That’s much harder, but we have a few years until the election to make it work.
For me they crossed that line this week.
That’s much harder, but we have a few years until the election to make it work.
For me they crossed that line this week.
November 16, 2025 at 12:41 PM
There’s a point where Labour’s policy choices move them into the “keep them out” category, and the tactical voting question becomes “who is best placed to beat Lab/Con/Ref?”
That’s much harder, but we have a few years until the election to make it work.
For me they crossed that line this week.
That’s much harder, but we have a few years until the election to make it work.
For me they crossed that line this week.
If those are the only two options then we’re done for anyway.
It’s at least 3 years to the election. There’s time for an option that isn’t “wilful cruelty” or “regretful cruelty”.
It’s at least 3 years to the election. There’s time for an option that isn’t “wilful cruelty” or “regretful cruelty”.
November 16, 2025 at 12:23 PM
If those are the only two options then we’re done for anyway.
It’s at least 3 years to the election. There’s time for an option that isn’t “wilful cruelty” or “regretful cruelty”.
It’s at least 3 years to the election. There’s time for an option that isn’t “wilful cruelty” or “regretful cruelty”.
The system she’s proposing is arguably even crueler than that.
Dubs would probably have been allowed to stay, but only ever with a 2.5 year horizon.
From age 6 to 26 we’d make it clear he shouldn’t be making any plans here.
It’s a cruel way to expect anyone to live their life.
Dubs would probably have been allowed to stay, but only ever with a 2.5 year horizon.
From age 6 to 26 we’d make it clear he shouldn’t be making any plans here.
It’s a cruel way to expect anyone to live their life.
November 16, 2025 at 12:03 PM
The system she’s proposing is arguably even crueler than that.
Dubs would probably have been allowed to stay, but only ever with a 2.5 year horizon.
From age 6 to 26 we’d make it clear he shouldn’t be making any plans here.
It’s a cruel way to expect anyone to live their life.
Dubs would probably have been allowed to stay, but only ever with a 2.5 year horizon.
From age 6 to 26 we’d make it clear he shouldn’t be making any plans here.
It’s a cruel way to expect anyone to live their life.
It would take something crueler than “significant chance of death” to stop people trying to cross.
All these new rules will do is make it harder for people to rebuild their lives and integrate.
All these new rules will do is make it harder for people to rebuild their lives and integrate.
November 16, 2025 at 9:57 AM
It would take something crueler than “significant chance of death” to stop people trying to cross.
All these new rules will do is make it harder for people to rebuild their lives and integrate.
All these new rules will do is make it harder for people to rebuild their lives and integrate.
If you find safety here as a child that means your entire childhood is lived under the threat of deportation.
If you come here as a young adult that’s the whole period when you’re meeting someone and raising a family.
We’re asking people to integrate more, but making it harder for them to do so.
If you come here as a young adult that’s the whole period when you’re meeting someone and raising a family.
We’re asking people to integrate more, but making it harder for them to do so.
November 16, 2025 at 9:42 AM
If you find safety here as a child that means your entire childhood is lived under the threat of deportation.
If you come here as a young adult that’s the whole period when you’re meeting someone and raising a family.
We’re asking people to integrate more, but making it harder for them to do so.
If you come here as a young adult that’s the whole period when you’re meeting someone and raising a family.
We’re asking people to integrate more, but making it harder for them to do so.
Even beyond the moral repugnance of making life worse for refugees, this just seems like a terribly designed immigration system.
20 years before you know if you’ll be allowed to stay, or be turned into a refugee again.
20 years before you know if you’ll be allowed to stay, or be turned into a refugee again.
November 16, 2025 at 9:42 AM
Even beyond the moral repugnance of making life worse for refugees, this just seems like a terribly designed immigration system.
20 years before you know if you’ll be allowed to stay, or be turned into a refugee again.
20 years before you know if you’ll be allowed to stay, or be turned into a refugee again.
> We believe these people have rights, but we’re going to take those rights away to try and stay in power
That’s a more morally repugnant position than just “we don’t believe these people should have rights”.
That’s a more morally repugnant position than just “we don’t believe these people should have rights”.
November 16, 2025 at 9:23 AM
> We believe these people have rights, but we’re going to take those rights away to try and stay in power
That’s a more morally repugnant position than just “we don’t believe these people should have rights”.
That’s a more morally repugnant position than just “we don’t believe these people should have rights”.
There’s no attempt to justify this outside of the threat from Reform.
Is there a moral case for doing this? No, the opposite.
What public services will it improve? None.
Will it save money? No, it’ll cost more.
It’s not even widely popular.
The whole justification is to try and head off Reform.
Is there a moral case for doing this? No, the opposite.
What public services will it improve? None.
Will it save money? No, it’ll cost more.
It’s not even widely popular.
The whole justification is to try and head off Reform.
November 16, 2025 at 9:23 AM
There’s no attempt to justify this outside of the threat from Reform.
Is there a moral case for doing this? No, the opposite.
What public services will it improve? None.
Will it save money? No, it’ll cost more.
It’s not even widely popular.
The whole justification is to try and head off Reform.
Is there a moral case for doing this? No, the opposite.
What public services will it improve? None.
Will it save money? No, it’ll cost more.
It’s not even widely popular.
The whole justification is to try and head off Reform.
Starmer’s “immigration has caused incalculable harm” line is bollocks, but if you wanted to create the most harmful type of immigration this is how you’d do it.
November 15, 2025 at 1:23 PM
Starmer’s “immigration has caused incalculable harm” line is bollocks, but if you wanted to create the most harmful type of immigration this is how you’d do it.
What’s worse, 100 thugs throwing bricks and shouting “go home”, or a government with a massive majority writing “go home” into the law?
If Mahmood goes ahead with this change she’s joining the thugs.
If Mahmood goes ahead with this change she’s joining the thugs.
November 15, 2025 at 9:01 AM
What’s worse, 100 thugs throwing bricks and shouting “go home”, or a government with a massive majority writing “go home” into the law?
If Mahmood goes ahead with this change she’s joining the thugs.
If Mahmood goes ahead with this change she’s joining the thugs.
The idea that they’re doing this to combat Reform makes it worse.
“We believe in human rights, but we’re willing to take them away from people to stay in power” is *worse* than a straightforward “we don’t like foreigners”.
“We believe in human rights, but we’re willing to take them away from people to stay in power” is *worse* than a straightforward “we don’t like foreigners”.
November 15, 2025 at 8:54 AM
The idea that they’re doing this to combat Reform makes it worse.
“We believe in human rights, but we’re willing to take them away from people to stay in power” is *worse* than a straightforward “we don’t like foreigners”.
“We believe in human rights, but we’re willing to take them away from people to stay in power” is *worse* than a straightforward “we don’t like foreigners”.
I’m out.
Labour have a massive majority. The things you choose to do when you have a majority define you more clearly than any idealistic speeches or links to history.
A party that chooses to take away refugee rights is a party that wants to take away rights. Everything else is detail.
Labour have a massive majority. The things you choose to do when you have a majority define you more clearly than any idealistic speeches or links to history.
A party that chooses to take away refugee rights is a party that wants to take away rights. Everything else is detail.
November 15, 2025 at 8:50 AM
I’m out.
Labour have a massive majority. The things you choose to do when you have a majority define you more clearly than any idealistic speeches or links to history.
A party that chooses to take away refugee rights is a party that wants to take away rights. Everything else is detail.
Labour have a massive majority. The things you choose to do when you have a majority define you more clearly than any idealistic speeches or links to history.
A party that chooses to take away refugee rights is a party that wants to take away rights. Everything else is detail.
The Thick of It’s version was more believable.
November 13, 2025 at 6:10 PM
The Thick of It’s version was more believable.