The PMC is part of Labour's core vote so eroding it from the bottom with minimum wage increases and from the top with higher taxes feels... interesting.

For me at least the problem is that you're *particularly* soaking people on £100-125k. I'm not clear why their marginal rate should be less than someone on £1m - other than that it's easier to tax the upper end of the salariat.

The point being that we are currently addressing impartiality on the basis of whoever shouts loudest, which is probably the worst way to manage the problem. It will always be possible to pick examples which show a bias. The question is whether these are systemic and tend to go in a similar direction

So the assembly would hear cases from both sides, take evidence from experts, assess policies and make recommendations. This could happen on a regular basis - perhaps every couple of years and/or as part of charter renewal.

I'm still not getting this straight. The charge from some is that the BBC is structurally biased towards one side (usually the left). I think the question of whether it is impartial - and the best ways to correct any impartiality - is a good topic for a citizens assembly.

Yes this is my point. I don't think anyone outside the newsroom is going to second guess coverage in the moment. The question is about how we judge those decisions after the fact.

I was thinking it would very much help on questions of bias. At the moment, bias is usually define by people with a vested interest in a topic and amplified by sympathetic media. This seems a very poor way to ensure impartiality.

As @igmansfield.bsky.social often reminds us, people on the left can be guilty of 'nothing to see here'. The BBC does need to secure public confidence in its impartiality in a highly contested media environment. I don't think The Telegraph is the right organisation to advise on this.

Yes that's fair - you could certainly see it offered as an employee benefit.

If my employer is happy to provide me with power at domestic prices then excellent. My limited experience is that workplace chargers are usually provided by a third party. Also I don't drive to work.

Sure but this will be much more expensive.

Arlie Hochschild?

As someone with onstreet parking I'd really welcome this but a) I'll believe it when I see it and b) I often can't park outside my house.

The argument against a full EV transition is precisely that EVs are expensive. Making them more expensive at this point won't help. Home charging only helps if you have a garage or drive.

Fair enough. I was thinking specifically about the way ministers agree deliverables with departmental chief executives.

Having said that there's been a lot of reform since I last looked at this so happy to bow to experts.

That certainly can be the case. I think in France, for instance, the elite was allowed to become far too insulated from public scrutiny. In NZ the governance system actually provides a lot of transparency and accountability, which tends to balance out the informal system.

I suspect one of the reasons NZ survived the madder excesses of its new public management experiment was because a whole other, networked system of governance was operating in the background.

This is important because it means you can govern through personal relationships, networks and phone calls as well as formal systems. It makes the system capacity vastly higher than in highly centralised units like England.