I wanted to comment on “Crush Crime” and sentencing. Posting anonymously as I sit as a part time judge myself.
First, some of us - but I don’t think that many - get it. When I am confronted by career criminals I always give them as long as I can without being appealable. My view is that they have had their chance, come their 20th conviction or whatever, and the best thing for me to do for their community is to subtract them from it for as long as I can. What’s telling is that they are often visibly shocked that I haven’t fallen for the traditional claims that at last they get it, they will turn their lives around etc, as they go straight inside.
But second, the extent to which judicial hands are tied by mandatory sentencing guidelines- and mandatory discounts for early guilty pleas no matter how strong the evidence - isn’t widely understood. And the guideline are an absolute classic illustration of a general Cummings theme: the silent usurpation of democratic law making by an unaccountable and unscrutinised committee.
Judges have to follow the sentencing guidelines if an offence falls within them. Many of them utterly emasculate the sentencing options Parliament has prescribed. Take burglary. Parliament has given it a maximum sentence of 14 years. Under the guideline, the top-of-range sentence for the most serious category of the offence is… 6 years. A reduction of 57%. And the starting point sentence for that most serious category is… 3 years. A reduction of 78.6%.
To these sentences you then have (no discretion even if they are caught red-handed) to apply a one third discount for an early guilty plea. So the starting point sentence for the most serious of category of burglar who is pleads immediately becomes 2 years. Almost 86% less than the maximum sentence.
These sorts of figures are common across the board. Criminal damage - maximum sentence 10 years; highest sentence in the guidelines - 4 years. Interestingly, where an offence is the sort where there is a strong activist presence rather than a boring old offence like burglary, the guidelines are less out of kilter. Stalking with fear of violence for example is max sentence 10 years, highest guideline sentence 8 years.
I have thought for some time that crime, net zero and migration forms a perfect trifecta. It just needs a politician who can cut-through, and who unlike Farage can work strategically and build a competent machine, to exploit it.
Interesting comment. I know nothing of the history of sentencing guidelines. What prompted this? Were judges hands always tied in such a way, or did the constraints begin at a defined point?
My thanks for the link. Imagine my utter lack of surprise at finding Tony Blair behind the creation of the Sentencing Council. Everything that man touched has poisoned our country and brought misery to our people.
TSP could have a simple manifesto pledge to rescind all legislation enacted under Tony Blair. All of it. Every quango. Every department. Every last word. Tear it out by the roots.
Another absolute corker. This Substack is the only thing that keeps me sane and optimistic about the future. You've definitely challenged my own thinking over the years and made me reassess where I've gone wrong on issues. Plenty to digest and think about!
The decoupling of the ruling class from objective reality cannot be cured. Pariah status is a powerful compliance tool that will be brought to bear against all players. The personnel pool that TSP will draw from will necessarily have be be from outside SW1-adjacent circles. Nobody from Oxbridge. Nobody from Eton. Nobody who lives in London.
> Crush Crime.
I am entirely convinced that justice is the route to TSP victory. It is the oldest duty of a government to its people and the lynchpin of all economic prosperity. Add to this the longstanding native obsession with fair play and I think it is a message that can deliver on both rhetorical and dialectic messaging across all demographics. Justice is something that evreybody wants and fortunately is not subject to resource scarcity.
However, I am not convinced that the justice system can be reformed. Personnel is policy and SW1 has been busy appointing judges since the Blair years. This is the system that brought forth Keir Starmer as its star player. The ideological cancer of human rights has infested the entire system from top to bottom, rendering incapable of its original function of delivering justice. Unlike various ministries where parallel organisations can be fired up to grow and assume workload over time, competing justice systems running in parallel within a single state are fundamentally incoherent and will inevitably result in conflict.
The best solution I can come up with something akin to a lottery for legal professionals where applicants are chosen at random (to prevent corruption/infiltration at scale) and given an exam based on Blackstone's original text, together with sample cases for judgement where applicant's judgement can be compared against that of legitimate legal giants like Lord Denning. The King has the power to remove judges and the TSP should make a point of publicly appealing to him to remove judges whose verdicts are counter to justice.
Yougov has polling data which shows that the public endorse much, much harsher punishments for criminals, including the death penalty. Turning the justice system into an instrument of righteous terror would make SW1 froth at the mouth whilst being tremendously popular with the demos. If TSP can find personnel who embody the Chad Yes meme and simply hold frame in public discourse, I think the voters would flock to the banner.
EDIT: I also think there is room to drive discourse on the utility of prison. Prison was only a punishment for debtors in the past, not common criminals. Prior to prison, the justice system makde extensive use of corporal punishment (stocks/pillory/flogging) as an immediate and low-cost negative feedback for criminal behaviour. For recidivists, there was the noose. Northern Europe killed 1% of its population annually via the courts and this produced very, very orderly and pleasant cultures.
Prison was a reform driven by the Quakers who thought that a custodial sentence would produce repentance and change. After more than 200 years of use, I do not see a convincing case that prisons serve the purpose of either prevention or reform. Prison used to be a genuinely horrific place and society rightly revolted at the conditions of early prisons, but making prisons pleasant has nerfed prison as an answer to criminal conduct. It is time to critically examine the case for imprisonment as a viable punishment.
Prison works in that it incapacities recidivist criminals from committing crimes on the outside. El Salvador's experience proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am perfectly happy with Scandinavian style cushy prisons provided we send a LOT more people to them and for a much longer time.
My objection to the ""cushy prison" is that the worst-case scenario for any criminal, no matter how heinous, is that they spend the rest of their lives in a comfortably warm building, fed, watered, educated and entertained at the taxpayer's expense. This does not present an adequate disincentive. I have to work a full time job to provide these living conditions for myself.
Plus earlier prediction "prepare for a pandemic" plus at Vote Leave and after that EU would move further right than anyone else was thinking about plus at same time that leaving would show up for everyone just how inept our politicians and civil servants are when EU cover is taken away.
“Are they all lying? Or are they delusional? On any given story it’s hard to know how much is lies and how much is delusions. I think generally it’s something like <5% lying and >95% are simply mimetic NPC nodes in the network.”
The only thing I disagree with in the above: I still think more likely the US (not Ukraine) blew up Nord Stream. This immediately after being so uniform (the best compilation/media/gaslighting reel): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSZyKYitC3M
I think the big challenge for a post Northcote-Trevelyan system is simply getting to there from where we currently are.
Building on your comment about prospectively red-teaming the various road-blocks ahead of taking the reins at the DfE, it seems to me that there is value in a much wider transition project that does something similar, i.e. has primary legislation on the stocks, builds out a way of implementing a controlled-burn of the administrative state (i.e. who and what gets sh*t-canned and in what order), and identifies high quality people to be parachuted into key roles thereafter (Cab Sec, Perm Secs...), etc. Taking that one step further, and picking up from your point about building new (and better) systems in parallel, c.f. drone force vs air force, I wonder how much scope there is to simply design (and recruit) new teams / systems and let the old departments wither and rot as they lose resource and relevance, i.e. build around roadblocks rather than trying to reform them.
Some of this sort of planning would have to be kept secret, but there is a mandate point (as you point out), in that the only way to push through something that will encounter the massed resistance of the entire apparatus of the state is to be explicit about what is planned. In that regard, I am profoundly pessimistic about the public's desire to accept the trade-offs necessary to put the UK on a better path, not least given that the state now operates as a massive Ponzi scheme: according to the ONS, over half of people in UK are net recipients. That said, I've just got back from Argentina and Milei's support seems very real as people are simply sick of the status quo and the ñoqui. With that in mind, perhaps my pessimism is misplaced and it's all a question of framing.
However, assuming that a mandate can be won, a significant problem is that the quality of politician is so poor, so actually executing will be incredibly tricky. Part of this can be fixed by increasing salaries, c.f. Singapore (but only later on, when you are in the position to do that, which doesn't solve the issue in time for the first intake). However, a large part is also that the changing nature of the job over last 30-40 years, with MPs now largely focussed on case-work and constituency level minutiae. This all contributes to make the job incredibly unappealing even if you pay MPs 250-350k. I think it was Bob Marshall-Andrews that described the Blair-era performance metrics based on the number of surgeries, voter contact rates, etc, as a simple and obvious control mechanism to ensure that governing was left to the "grown ups" (it probably goes back further than that as well, given the criticisms Enoch Powell was making of the quangoisation of the state in the 70s/80s - MPs have willing and actively pushed their own mass lobotomisation over a generation or more).
I think the bottom line on the mandate point therefore is that you have to be explicit that the first 12/18/24 months will be run incredibly tightly, from the centre, and without much reference to parliament (other than passing the primary legislation), and otherwise using prerogative powers, orders in council, etc fairly ruthlessly... I am happy to help with any / all of this, or be pointed in the direction of people working on this sort of stuff: I'm a half decent barrister and will complete a part time data science course at Imperial during the first half of 2025.
Over half the UK are net recipients. Why? A big chunk are pensioners. Next lot will be those on UC. Why are they on UC? Some will be in employment and are paid so badly or unable to get the hours in a gig contract that they qualify for UC.
Regarding pensioners part of the problem is low trust in investment products given the financial scandals in the their lifetimes.
Regarding people on UC. Simple. Pay them more. What would have been better than bumping up employer NI would have been to get those employers to use that money to increase pay of their bottom rung employees (I'm looking at you Starbucks). Increased salary=increased tax revenue.
We had a discussion about employment for myself initiated by you. I asked questions regarding important workplace details including reasonable adjustments for disabled employees (particularly those on the autistic spectrum) and I have not heard from you since.
Does this mean your organization DOES NOT support autistic employees despite multiple promotions claiming that TSP was “the party for autistic people”? Silence is concerning. Please reply.
"I am watching for the first person to accept this challenge."
Depressingly i don't think many in the UK media will take this up, just look at the reaction of Campbell and Stewart on the Rest is Politics, Sandbrook was right on the money with his reflections.
One ray of hope i see is Matthew Syed at the Sunday Times, who has been writing and tweeting quite well lately (even re-tweeting you). What do you make of him Dom?
he seems to be shifting - many will just from the pressure of events.
but overall there'll be continued polarisation - many will desert existing elites but those elites and their NPC network will keep doubling down in blindness/hate etc.
Look at most of my NPC twitter list - most decamped to bluesky where they scream at each other all day about the need for censorship
“Visit their website, give the campaign your name and postcode, they’ll email MPs on your behalf, and give them a small donation. Just 60 seconds and you can add to pressure — stop reading, do it now!”
This seems like 38 Degrees all over again. This campaign may well be successful but if it is it won’t be through mass emailing MPs with identical emails - they just slap a filter on this stuff and delete as from their perspective it may as well be a bot.
I recognise the suspicion about 38 degrees. They seemed to go very quiet during lockdown, and resurfaced with a bit of an agenda, or so it seemed to me. Anyway, that didn't stop me from giving crush crime a spin.
Like the “fine people” thing, another great example of a Trump myth is that he has never condemned white supremacists - watch this great compilation of him doing exactly that + liberals saying he had never condemned them https://youtu.be/RGrHF-su9v8?si=NMi79DZ2SN5naMDN
Another element of why the left have people, particularly young men, is because the messaging to them has been incredibly toxic. Articles like “37 things white peoples need to stop ruining in 2018” https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricepeck/37-things-white-people-ruined-in-2017 . I think stuff like that has been toned down a bit over the years, but it has had a lasting impact on progressives reputations.
In a recent interview you gave in Oxford, you mentioned you'd been reading accounts from Pitt's tenure in the late 18th Century, and being surprised to learn how much like a modern startup the government was in those days. Which accounts were these? Are there particular writings you'd recommend for an insider's view of operations?
Aware you’re busy rn so don’t have time for reading these or posting but seriously - there is an army of us waiting to destroy the traitors, retards and pompous dickheads running the shitshow atm. Most in comments here are on board. All that is needed is a vehicle and an Ataturk or Cromwell to lead, ie with clear vision and without mercy. We can trust the plan and that the right live players, money men and high placed defectors are getting into position. But anyone with a pulse can feel the potential energy built up like a coiled spring. Chagos, 5 star hotels and that *fucking* No10/Sun piece blaming Amazon for Southport - the breaking point is very near. Say the word, let it rip, I’m in. Whatever it takes to win, no excuses no distractions. Anyone else feel the same?
Dominic: I sense progress in advancing the TSP concept and embracing items that will strongly resonate with people (eg on crime). The obvious synergy with Elon Musk especially when “building” things is excellent but a less tangible vote winner. The YouTube output -impressive but obviously talking to the converted and not yet going mainstream, although Labour obviously sniffing.
The Aug 23 posting on the ethos of the TSP - pretty compelling and vote catching with big messages to get over to voters. Needs hell of a front-person to tell a hell of a story. However the “vision-thing” of doing politics better – “navigate by voters” as you say - not there.
In fact you don’t say very much about the people. All wisdom exudes from Dominic Cummings and the incredible folk at the heart of government. You overlook the collective will and wisdom of the people – for steerage you think it enough to listen to what focus groups say about ideas from the very select few? This can be perceived as a fundamental arrogance and potentially a downfall.
You and most of the subscribers shy away from setting out a new mode of governing – beyond our current democratic practices. Elections and voting to appoint the power-hungry to rule persists. As is very evident democracies complete with their autocratic tendencies are not delivering at all well as we rattle through the 21st century – in fact delivering division within nations and arguably also between nations, and possibly ultimately ending human civilization as we know it.
Human nature evolved out of the struggle to survive. The physical labour needed to access often scarce resources necessitated short-term thinking just to live the next day. This created a distinct competitive streak in homo sapiens which influenced the protocols in formating modern democracy. But man’s other innate traits, to agree and to trust and thereby to collaborate allowed civilization to emerge.
Centuries on, the future has little to do with the past. It is to do with AI-driven solutions to virtually every aspect of human behaviour and endeavour. A revolution in agency and efficiency is on our doorstep which will also be greatly enhanced by the availability of inexpensive and abundant clean energy right across the planet. Such a new energy technology I believe will soon be unveiled. This new script for man’s very existence allows the empathetic side of human nature to come to the fore. Demilitarization needs be on the agenda but if culture clashes persist these will be exercised by AI-driven drones.
If we continue to look backwards to move forward then I believe us sapiens on earth will soon be doomed. A fellow physicist, Elon Musk, has worked this all out – that’s why he is lining up rockets to save our precious humanity on some other planet.
But with due respect - Elon has overlooked the final and most important prize for AI. For it enables a long overdue evolutionary step in the only form of governance that fits this new age, that brings all the people on board to inspire the tiny proportion that makes things happen, that creates a future generally free of the angst and division that so dominates and diminishes today’s world.
That form of governance is democracy, but not the “broken, rotten” version operated in the West – “Government by Majority Rule” but a new 21st century genre “Government by Majority Agreement”. It's not Utopia - it’s a new trajectory - initially for the UK, and if enacted, Mars will have to wait.
I wanted to comment on “Crush Crime” and sentencing. Posting anonymously as I sit as a part time judge myself.
First, some of us - but I don’t think that many - get it. When I am confronted by career criminals I always give them as long as I can without being appealable. My view is that they have had their chance, come their 20th conviction or whatever, and the best thing for me to do for their community is to subtract them from it for as long as I can. What’s telling is that they are often visibly shocked that I haven’t fallen for the traditional claims that at last they get it, they will turn their lives around etc, as they go straight inside.
But second, the extent to which judicial hands are tied by mandatory sentencing guidelines- and mandatory discounts for early guilty pleas no matter how strong the evidence - isn’t widely understood. And the guideline are an absolute classic illustration of a general Cummings theme: the silent usurpation of democratic law making by an unaccountable and unscrutinised committee.
Judges have to follow the sentencing guidelines if an offence falls within them. Many of them utterly emasculate the sentencing options Parliament has prescribed. Take burglary. Parliament has given it a maximum sentence of 14 years. Under the guideline, the top-of-range sentence for the most serious category of the offence is… 6 years. A reduction of 57%. And the starting point sentence for that most serious category is… 3 years. A reduction of 78.6%.
To these sentences you then have (no discretion even if they are caught red-handed) to apply a one third discount for an early guilty plea. So the starting point sentence for the most serious of category of burglar who is pleads immediately becomes 2 years. Almost 86% less than the maximum sentence.
These sorts of figures are common across the board. Criminal damage - maximum sentence 10 years; highest sentence in the guidelines - 4 years. Interestingly, where an offence is the sort where there is a strong activist presence rather than a boring old offence like burglary, the guidelines are less out of kilter. Stalking with fear of violence for example is max sentence 10 years, highest guideline sentence 8 years.
I have thought for some time that crime, net zero and migration forms a perfect trifecta. It just needs a politician who can cut-through, and who unlike Farage can work strategically and build a competent machine, to exploit it.
This is the sort of thing I want to be able to save. Fascinating insights: thank you.
Interesting comment. I know nothing of the history of sentencing guidelines. What prompted this? Were judges hands always tied in such a way, or did the constraints begin at a defined point?
History here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/about-the-sentencing-council/history/
My thanks for the link. Imagine my utter lack of surprise at finding Tony Blair behind the creation of the Sentencing Council. Everything that man touched has poisoned our country and brought misery to our people.
TSP could have a simple manifesto pledge to rescind all legislation enacted under Tony Blair. All of it. Every quango. Every department. Every last word. Tear it out by the roots.
Another absolute corker. This Substack is the only thing that keeps me sane and optimistic about the future. You've definitely challenged my own thinking over the years and made me reassess where I've gone wrong on issues. Plenty to digest and think about!
The decoupling of the ruling class from objective reality cannot be cured. Pariah status is a powerful compliance tool that will be brought to bear against all players. The personnel pool that TSP will draw from will necessarily have be be from outside SW1-adjacent circles. Nobody from Oxbridge. Nobody from Eton. Nobody who lives in London.
> Crush Crime.
I am entirely convinced that justice is the route to TSP victory. It is the oldest duty of a government to its people and the lynchpin of all economic prosperity. Add to this the longstanding native obsession with fair play and I think it is a message that can deliver on both rhetorical and dialectic messaging across all demographics. Justice is something that evreybody wants and fortunately is not subject to resource scarcity.
However, I am not convinced that the justice system can be reformed. Personnel is policy and SW1 has been busy appointing judges since the Blair years. This is the system that brought forth Keir Starmer as its star player. The ideological cancer of human rights has infested the entire system from top to bottom, rendering incapable of its original function of delivering justice. Unlike various ministries where parallel organisations can be fired up to grow and assume workload over time, competing justice systems running in parallel within a single state are fundamentally incoherent and will inevitably result in conflict.
The best solution I can come up with something akin to a lottery for legal professionals where applicants are chosen at random (to prevent corruption/infiltration at scale) and given an exam based on Blackstone's original text, together with sample cases for judgement where applicant's judgement can be compared against that of legitimate legal giants like Lord Denning. The King has the power to remove judges and the TSP should make a point of publicly appealing to him to remove judges whose verdicts are counter to justice.
Yougov has polling data which shows that the public endorse much, much harsher punishments for criminals, including the death penalty. Turning the justice system into an instrument of righteous terror would make SW1 froth at the mouth whilst being tremendously popular with the demos. If TSP can find personnel who embody the Chad Yes meme and simply hold frame in public discourse, I think the voters would flock to the banner.
EDIT: I also think there is room to drive discourse on the utility of prison. Prison was only a punishment for debtors in the past, not common criminals. Prior to prison, the justice system makde extensive use of corporal punishment (stocks/pillory/flogging) as an immediate and low-cost negative feedback for criminal behaviour. For recidivists, there was the noose. Northern Europe killed 1% of its population annually via the courts and this produced very, very orderly and pleasant cultures.
Prison was a reform driven by the Quakers who thought that a custodial sentence would produce repentance and change. After more than 200 years of use, I do not see a convincing case that prisons serve the purpose of either prevention or reform. Prison used to be a genuinely horrific place and society rightly revolted at the conditions of early prisons, but making prisons pleasant has nerfed prison as an answer to criminal conduct. It is time to critically examine the case for imprisonment as a viable punishment.
Prison works in that it incapacities recidivist criminals from committing crimes on the outside. El Salvador's experience proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am perfectly happy with Scandinavian style cushy prisons provided we send a LOT more people to them and for a much longer time.
My objection to the ""cushy prison" is that the worst-case scenario for any criminal, no matter how heinous, is that they spend the rest of their lives in a comfortably warm building, fed, watered, educated and entertained at the taxpayer's expense. This does not present an adequate disincentive. I have to work a full time job to provide these living conditions for myself.
Can you do another QnA sometime?
P.s. it really has been amazing how much shit you have predicted on this substack.
yes i will
You’ve just made another prediction
Plus earlier prediction "prepare for a pandemic" plus at Vote Leave and after that EU would move further right than anyone else was thinking about plus at same time that leaving would show up for everyone just how inept our politicians and civil servants are when EU cover is taken away.
on the @pmarca/Rogan podcast Cicero fishponds were mentioned, so either Marc was listening to your recent Sprectator interview or Cicero trending
Cicero is trending globally!
Cf. Londsdale piece too
Wondered the same myself!
Awesome summary.
“Are they all lying? Or are they delusional? On any given story it’s hard to know how much is lies and how much is delusions. I think generally it’s something like <5% lying and >95% are simply mimetic NPC nodes in the network.”
The only thing I disagree with in the above: I still think more likely the US (not Ukraine) blew up Nord Stream. This immediately after being so uniform (the best compilation/media/gaslighting reel): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSZyKYitC3M
And Biden acting so suspicious: https://x.com/KimDotcom/status/1575580365418549248 (months before Seymour Hersh’s piece)
The Ukraine story coming months later, and this being how it was handled the day after, does not make sense to me!
*
Indeed: “Fuck Peloton!” https://edwardmdruce.substack.com/p/digest-32-fuck-peloton 😂
I suspect probably both UKR & CIA involved - so a combined op.
It seems some UKR nationals have been traced but I havent followed the story for months
👍
I think the big challenge for a post Northcote-Trevelyan system is simply getting to there from where we currently are.
Building on your comment about prospectively red-teaming the various road-blocks ahead of taking the reins at the DfE, it seems to me that there is value in a much wider transition project that does something similar, i.e. has primary legislation on the stocks, builds out a way of implementing a controlled-burn of the administrative state (i.e. who and what gets sh*t-canned and in what order), and identifies high quality people to be parachuted into key roles thereafter (Cab Sec, Perm Secs...), etc. Taking that one step further, and picking up from your point about building new (and better) systems in parallel, c.f. drone force vs air force, I wonder how much scope there is to simply design (and recruit) new teams / systems and let the old departments wither and rot as they lose resource and relevance, i.e. build around roadblocks rather than trying to reform them.
Some of this sort of planning would have to be kept secret, but there is a mandate point (as you point out), in that the only way to push through something that will encounter the massed resistance of the entire apparatus of the state is to be explicit about what is planned. In that regard, I am profoundly pessimistic about the public's desire to accept the trade-offs necessary to put the UK on a better path, not least given that the state now operates as a massive Ponzi scheme: according to the ONS, over half of people in UK are net recipients. That said, I've just got back from Argentina and Milei's support seems very real as people are simply sick of the status quo and the ñoqui. With that in mind, perhaps my pessimism is misplaced and it's all a question of framing.
However, assuming that a mandate can be won, a significant problem is that the quality of politician is so poor, so actually executing will be incredibly tricky. Part of this can be fixed by increasing salaries, c.f. Singapore (but only later on, when you are in the position to do that, which doesn't solve the issue in time for the first intake). However, a large part is also that the changing nature of the job over last 30-40 years, with MPs now largely focussed on case-work and constituency level minutiae. This all contributes to make the job incredibly unappealing even if you pay MPs 250-350k. I think it was Bob Marshall-Andrews that described the Blair-era performance metrics based on the number of surgeries, voter contact rates, etc, as a simple and obvious control mechanism to ensure that governing was left to the "grown ups" (it probably goes back further than that as well, given the criticisms Enoch Powell was making of the quangoisation of the state in the 70s/80s - MPs have willing and actively pushed their own mass lobotomisation over a generation or more).
I think the bottom line on the mandate point therefore is that you have to be explicit that the first 12/18/24 months will be run incredibly tightly, from the centre, and without much reference to parliament (other than passing the primary legislation), and otherwise using prerogative powers, orders in council, etc fairly ruthlessly... I am happy to help with any / all of this, or be pointed in the direction of people working on this sort of stuff: I'm a half decent barrister and will complete a part time data science course at Imperial during the first half of 2025.
Over half the UK are net recipients. Why? A big chunk are pensioners. Next lot will be those on UC. Why are they on UC? Some will be in employment and are paid so badly or unable to get the hours in a gig contract that they qualify for UC.
Regarding pensioners part of the problem is low trust in investment products given the financial scandals in the their lifetimes.
Regarding people on UC. Simple. Pay them more. What would have been better than bumping up employer NI would have been to get those employers to use that money to increase pay of their bottom rung employees (I'm looking at you Starbucks). Increased salary=increased tax revenue.
Low pay is a problem, but how do you compel employers to raise wages without reducing the total number of jobs?
Hi Mr Cummings,
We had a discussion about employment for myself initiated by you. I asked questions regarding important workplace details including reasonable adjustments for disabled employees (particularly those on the autistic spectrum) and I have not heard from you since.
Does this mean your organization DOES NOT support autistic employees despite multiple promotions claiming that TSP was “the party for autistic people”? Silence is concerning. Please reply.
I’m an autist too - autists for Cummings unite!
Podcast version of the blog: https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/c560b396-1525-4d97-b52a-1c26112c8c77/audio
This is excellent.
"I am watching for the first person to accept this challenge."
Depressingly i don't think many in the UK media will take this up, just look at the reaction of Campbell and Stewart on the Rest is Politics, Sandbrook was right on the money with his reflections.
One ray of hope i see is Matthew Syed at the Sunday Times, who has been writing and tweeting quite well lately (even re-tweeting you). What do you make of him Dom?
he seems to be shifting - many will just from the pressure of events.
but overall there'll be continued polarisation - many will desert existing elites but those elites and their NPC network will keep doubling down in blindness/hate etc.
Look at most of my NPC twitter list - most decamped to bluesky where they scream at each other all day about the need for censorship
“Visit their website, give the campaign your name and postcode, they’ll email MPs on your behalf, and give them a small donation. Just 60 seconds and you can add to pressure — stop reading, do it now!”
This seems like 38 Degrees all over again. This campaign may well be successful but if it is it won’t be through mass emailing MPs with identical emails - they just slap a filter on this stuff and delete as from their perspective it may as well be a bot.
I recognise the suspicion about 38 degrees. They seemed to go very quiet during lockdown, and resurfaced with a bit of an agenda, or so it seemed to me. Anyway, that didn't stop me from giving crush crime a spin.
Like the “fine people” thing, another great example of a Trump myth is that he has never condemned white supremacists - watch this great compilation of him doing exactly that + liberals saying he had never condemned them https://youtu.be/RGrHF-su9v8?si=NMi79DZ2SN5naMDN
Another element of why the left have people, particularly young men, is because the messaging to them has been incredibly toxic. Articles like “37 things white peoples need to stop ruining in 2018” https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricepeck/37-things-white-people-ruined-in-2017 . I think stuff like that has been toned down a bit over the years, but it has had a lasting impact on progressives reputations.
Another good article about the times that a white supremacist website pretended to worship celebrities and brands, so that stupid journalists believe it and would give them media coverage https://shiningstar22.substack.com/p/how-the-online-white-nationalist
In a recent interview you gave in Oxford, you mentioned you'd been reading accounts from Pitt's tenure in the late 18th Century, and being surprised to learn how much like a modern startup the government was in those days. Which accounts were these? Are there particular writings you'd recommend for an insider's view of operations?
look at my blog on Napoleon Pitt Whitehall etc running over last months, click to bottom summary
Britain Against Napoleon: The Organisation of Victory, 1793-1815, by Roger Knight.
Aware you’re busy rn so don’t have time for reading these or posting but seriously - there is an army of us waiting to destroy the traitors, retards and pompous dickheads running the shitshow atm. Most in comments here are on board. All that is needed is a vehicle and an Ataturk or Cromwell to lead, ie with clear vision and without mercy. We can trust the plan and that the right live players, money men and high placed defectors are getting into position. But anyone with a pulse can feel the potential energy built up like a coiled spring. Chagos, 5 star hotels and that *fucking* No10/Sun piece blaming Amazon for Southport - the breaking point is very near. Say the word, let it rip, I’m in. Whatever it takes to win, no excuses no distractions. Anyone else feel the same?
Exactly. The country is crying out for a leader.
Love what you have achieved-never thought I would see the words 'Pat McFadden' and'Start up' in the same sentence!
Dominic: I sense progress in advancing the TSP concept and embracing items that will strongly resonate with people (eg on crime). The obvious synergy with Elon Musk especially when “building” things is excellent but a less tangible vote winner. The YouTube output -impressive but obviously talking to the converted and not yet going mainstream, although Labour obviously sniffing.
The Aug 23 posting on the ethos of the TSP - pretty compelling and vote catching with big messages to get over to voters. Needs hell of a front-person to tell a hell of a story. However the “vision-thing” of doing politics better – “navigate by voters” as you say - not there.
In fact you don’t say very much about the people. All wisdom exudes from Dominic Cummings and the incredible folk at the heart of government. You overlook the collective will and wisdom of the people – for steerage you think it enough to listen to what focus groups say about ideas from the very select few? This can be perceived as a fundamental arrogance and potentially a downfall.
You and most of the subscribers shy away from setting out a new mode of governing – beyond our current democratic practices. Elections and voting to appoint the power-hungry to rule persists. As is very evident democracies complete with their autocratic tendencies are not delivering at all well as we rattle through the 21st century – in fact delivering division within nations and arguably also between nations, and possibly ultimately ending human civilization as we know it.
Human nature evolved out of the struggle to survive. The physical labour needed to access often scarce resources necessitated short-term thinking just to live the next day. This created a distinct competitive streak in homo sapiens which influenced the protocols in formating modern democracy. But man’s other innate traits, to agree and to trust and thereby to collaborate allowed civilization to emerge.
Centuries on, the future has little to do with the past. It is to do with AI-driven solutions to virtually every aspect of human behaviour and endeavour. A revolution in agency and efficiency is on our doorstep which will also be greatly enhanced by the availability of inexpensive and abundant clean energy right across the planet. Such a new energy technology I believe will soon be unveiled. This new script for man’s very existence allows the empathetic side of human nature to come to the fore. Demilitarization needs be on the agenda but if culture clashes persist these will be exercised by AI-driven drones.
If we continue to look backwards to move forward then I believe us sapiens on earth will soon be doomed. A fellow physicist, Elon Musk, has worked this all out – that’s why he is lining up rockets to save our precious humanity on some other planet.
But with due respect - Elon has overlooked the final and most important prize for AI. For it enables a long overdue evolutionary step in the only form of governance that fits this new age, that brings all the people on board to inspire the tiny proportion that makes things happen, that creates a future generally free of the angst and division that so dominates and diminishes today’s world.
That form of governance is democracy, but not the “broken, rotten” version operated in the West – “Government by Majority Rule” but a new 21st century genre “Government by Majority Agreement”. It's not Utopia - it’s a new trajectory - initially for the UK, and if enacted, Mars will have to wait.