Tom Adams
@tomadam.bsky.social
Can you point me to a good source for getting my head around this?
I've always been (perhaps naively?) in the "paying subsidies and allowing profits will be worse for the end user than not doing that" camp.
But I'd love to see a good analysis that challenges this.
I've always been (perhaps naively?) in the "paying subsidies and allowing profits will be worse for the end user than not doing that" camp.
But I'd love to see a good analysis that challenges this.
November 23, 2025 at 1:57 PM
Can you point me to a good source for getting my head around this?
I've always been (perhaps naively?) in the "paying subsidies and allowing profits will be worse for the end user than not doing that" camp.
But I'd love to see a good analysis that challenges this.
I've always been (perhaps naively?) in the "paying subsidies and allowing profits will be worse for the end user than not doing that" camp.
But I'd love to see a good analysis that challenges this.
I'm probably guilty of this one too, but from now on not a mention of "pack animal" will pass in conversation without me piping up "ehem, do you mean social predator?".
Thank you for making me just that little bit less agreeable to be around.
Thank you for making me just that little bit less agreeable to be around.
November 22, 2025 at 10:01 AM
I'm probably guilty of this one too, but from now on not a mention of "pack animal" will pass in conversation without me piping up "ehem, do you mean social predator?".
Thank you for making me just that little bit less agreeable to be around.
Thank you for making me just that little bit less agreeable to be around.
There's also this fantastic idea that he thinks that government is somehow a different beast from other complex workplaces.
Good governance is good governance, and good people management is always essential.
You don't get a pass on being awful just because your ego thinks you're very important.
Good governance is good governance, and good people management is always essential.
You don't get a pass on being awful just because your ego thinks you're very important.
November 21, 2025 at 12:05 PM
There's also this fantastic idea that he thinks that government is somehow a different beast from other complex workplaces.
Good governance is good governance, and good people management is always essential.
You don't get a pass on being awful just because your ego thinks you're very important.
Good governance is good governance, and good people management is always essential.
You don't get a pass on being awful just because your ego thinks you're very important.
Well it's lovely to know that now absolutely everything will be seen through the prism of small boats.
Well done everyone for blowing a moderate property issue into one that occupies prime position in the national psyche.
Well done everyone for blowing a moderate property issue into one that occupies prime position in the national psyche.
November 20, 2025 at 7:52 AM
Well it's lovely to know that now absolutely everything will be seen through the prism of small boats.
Well done everyone for blowing a moderate property issue into one that occupies prime position in the national psyche.
Well done everyone for blowing a moderate property issue into one that occupies prime position in the national psyche.
I've just discovered this recipe has the best correction note I've ever seen in a BBC recipe.
November 19, 2025 at 10:26 PM
I've just discovered this recipe has the best correction note I've ever seen in a BBC recipe.
You're right, I'm unfairly besmirching it without trying it. There's something about a litre of vegetable oil in the centre of the table that's mildly disconcerting. But I shall endeavour to make it at some point.
November 19, 2025 at 10:23 PM
You're right, I'm unfairly besmirching it without trying it. There's something about a litre of vegetable oil in the centre of the table that's mildly disconcerting. But I shall endeavour to make it at some point.
I'm certainly going to be calling my MP's office today to make sure she knows how uncomfortable I am about the tone and direction.
Is this exercise was meant to quiet things down so she agrees to get behind the PM, I'm not sure it's quite worked.
Is this exercise was meant to quiet things down so she agrees to get behind the PM, I'm not sure it's quite worked.
November 17, 2025 at 7:48 AM
I'm certainly going to be calling my MP's office today to make sure she knows how uncomfortable I am about the tone and direction.
Is this exercise was meant to quiet things down so she agrees to get behind the PM, I'm not sure it's quite worked.
Is this exercise was meant to quiet things down so she agrees to get behind the PM, I'm not sure it's quite worked.
Wow, that's actually really good. Pitch it to Saatchi and Saatchi for the 2026 JL ad.
"Make your Christmas dreams an *actual* reality"
"Make your Christmas dreams an *actual* reality"
November 16, 2025 at 2:12 PM
Wow, that's actually really good. Pitch it to Saatchi and Saatchi for the 2026 JL ad.
"Make your Christmas dreams an *actual* reality"
"Make your Christmas dreams an *actual* reality"
Interesting question choice - the issue is that they've decided to raise tax elsewhere, not decided not to raise it at all.
The pertinent question is "rank these taxes in the order in which you'd be (least) happy to see them increase" (and even so, people would still blindly say corp tax).
The pertinent question is "rank these taxes in the order in which you'd be (least) happy to see them increase" (and even so, people would still blindly say corp tax).
November 14, 2025 at 7:54 PM
Interesting question choice - the issue is that they've decided to raise tax elsewhere, not decided not to raise it at all.
The pertinent question is "rank these taxes in the order in which you'd be (least) happy to see them increase" (and even so, people would still blindly say corp tax).
The pertinent question is "rank these taxes in the order in which you'd be (least) happy to see them increase" (and even so, people would still blindly say corp tax).
And part of the problem I have with the Labour narrative at the moment is that they've made no effort to explain that an extra 2p (or whatever) on higher earners will have more than 2p's worth of impact.
The answers to this survey are from people who haven't been told the alternative to raising IT.
The answers to this survey are from people who haven't been told the alternative to raising IT.
November 14, 2025 at 5:33 PM
And part of the problem I have with the Labour narrative at the moment is that they've made no effort to explain that an extra 2p (or whatever) on higher earners will have more than 2p's worth of impact.
The answers to this survey are from people who haven't been told the alternative to raising IT.
The answers to this survey are from people who haven't been told the alternative to raising IT.
Not a great question from yougov there - the issue is that they've decided to raise tax elsewhere, not decided not to raise it at all.
The pertinent question is "rank these taxes in the order in which you'd be least happy to see them increase" (and even so, people would still blindly say corp tax)
The pertinent question is "rank these taxes in the order in which you'd be least happy to see them increase" (and even so, people would still blindly say corp tax)
November 14, 2025 at 5:31 PM
Not a great question from yougov there - the issue is that they've decided to raise tax elsewhere, not decided not to raise it at all.
The pertinent question is "rank these taxes in the order in which you'd be least happy to see them increase" (and even so, people would still blindly say corp tax)
The pertinent question is "rank these taxes in the order in which you'd be least happy to see them increase" (and even so, people would still blindly say corp tax)
It's incredible that someone should need to point out that promises on integrity, honestly and good governance should be given higher priority than a promise on tax (which everyone expected them to break anyway!)
November 14, 2025 at 11:19 AM
It's incredible that someone should need to point out that promises on integrity, honestly and good governance should be given higher priority than a promise on tax (which everyone expected them to break anyway!)
Absolutely this.
We were promised "no more chaos" and "no more party over country".
This mad tax policy chaos, just to avoid the patently necessary IT rises, is the epitome of "we're taking this non-optimal path because we calculate it will hurt Labour least".
Which is both wrong, and dishonest.
We were promised "no more chaos" and "no more party over country".
This mad tax policy chaos, just to avoid the patently necessary IT rises, is the epitome of "we're taking this non-optimal path because we calculate it will hurt Labour least".
Which is both wrong, and dishonest.
November 14, 2025 at 11:18 AM
Absolutely this.
We were promised "no more chaos" and "no more party over country".
This mad tax policy chaos, just to avoid the patently necessary IT rises, is the epitome of "we're taking this non-optimal path because we calculate it will hurt Labour least".
Which is both wrong, and dishonest.
We were promised "no more chaos" and "no more party over country".
This mad tax policy chaos, just to avoid the patently necessary IT rises, is the epitome of "we're taking this non-optimal path because we calculate it will hurt Labour least".
Which is both wrong, and dishonest.
You've exactly summed up the problem. Labour is asking "how do we avoid a collapse of public trust in *Labour*?" rather than "what's in the best interest of the country and its residents?"
Labour made a promise to end "party over country" and currently they're dragging that pledge through the mud.
Labour made a promise to end "party over country" and currently they're dragging that pledge through the mud.
November 14, 2025 at 11:00 AM
You've exactly summed up the problem. Labour is asking "how do we avoid a collapse of public trust in *Labour*?" rather than "what's in the best interest of the country and its residents?"
Labour made a promise to end "party over country" and currently they're dragging that pledge through the mud.
Labour made a promise to end "party over country" and currently they're dragging that pledge through the mud.
And that's only if they put the whole lot up by 2%. If they only put it on the higher rate band then you're looking at £50/month.
That's less than a big family take-out. Sure it would be nice to have curry, but it would be nicer to have transport that works, and hospitals that I can actually go to.
That's less than a big family take-out. Sure it would be nice to have curry, but it would be nicer to have transport that works, and hospitals that I can actually go to.
November 13, 2025 at 10:47 PM
And that's only if they put the whole lot up by 2%. If they only put it on the higher rate band then you're looking at £50/month.
That's less than a big family take-out. Sure it would be nice to have curry, but it would be nicer to have transport that works, and hospitals that I can actually go to.
That's less than a big family take-out. Sure it would be nice to have curry, but it would be nicer to have transport that works, and hospitals that I can actually go to.
I am (individually) below £80,000, and have dependents.
I can still afford to pay some more. An extra 2% on £80k is (dodgy maths time) about £115/month.
That's not chump change, but it's not loads.
And it's certainly (comparatively) less impactful than the cuts currently falling on the poorest.
I can still afford to pay some more. An extra 2% on £80k is (dodgy maths time) about £115/month.
That's not chump change, but it's not loads.
And it's certainly (comparatively) less impactful than the cuts currently falling on the poorest.
November 13, 2025 at 10:43 PM
I am (individually) below £80,000, and have dependents.
I can still afford to pay some more. An extra 2% on £80k is (dodgy maths time) about £115/month.
That's not chump change, but it's not loads.
And it's certainly (comparatively) less impactful than the cuts currently falling on the poorest.
I can still afford to pay some more. An extra 2% on £80k is (dodgy maths time) about £115/month.
That's not chump change, but it's not loads.
And it's certainly (comparatively) less impactful than the cuts currently falling on the poorest.
I would love to see the meeting at which everyone agrees "yeah, the income tax thing will be a bad idea, so we'll make it work by making pensions rubbish and taking away people's cheaper bicycles, right?"
November 13, 2025 at 10:40 PM
I would love to see the meeting at which everyone agrees "yeah, the income tax thing will be a bad idea, so we'll make it work by making pensions rubbish and taking away people's cheaper bicycles, right?"
Oh wow. At this point I genuinely don't know who or what they think they're in government for.
Please tax me more.
I want nice things that work. I want security for people that aren't doing as well as me. I want investment in a positive future.
Please put up my income tax.
Please tax me more.
I want nice things that work. I want security for people that aren't doing as well as me. I want investment in a positive future.
Please put up my income tax.
November 13, 2025 at 10:37 PM
Oh wow. At this point I genuinely don't know who or what they think they're in government for.
Please tax me more.
I want nice things that work. I want security for people that aren't doing as well as me. I want investment in a positive future.
Please put up my income tax.
Please tax me more.
I want nice things that work. I want security for people that aren't doing as well as me. I want investment in a positive future.
Please put up my income tax.
I'm undecided on the Greens and @zackpolanski.bsky.social. I think they have a lot to prove in terms of credibility and feasibility in a lot of areas.
But we can all afford to try to improve the standard of political debate to better than sharing screenshots of out of context headlines, can't we?
But we can all afford to try to improve the standard of political debate to better than sharing screenshots of out of context headlines, can't we?
November 9, 2025 at 3:17 PM
I'm undecided on the Greens and @zackpolanski.bsky.social. I think they have a lot to prove in terms of credibility and feasibility in a lot of areas.
But we can all afford to try to improve the standard of political debate to better than sharing screenshots of out of context headlines, can't we?
But we can all afford to try to improve the standard of political debate to better than sharing screenshots of out of context headlines, can't we?
Except he didn't say that.
He said that it would be silly, and show a lack of moral leadership, to forget that peace and denuclearisation should be the ultimate goal.
He explicitly points out that it's unlikely, and that the idea looks mad, but that so too did peace in Ireland, post-apartheid etc.
He said that it would be silly, and show a lack of moral leadership, to forget that peace and denuclearisation should be the ultimate goal.
He explicitly points out that it's unlikely, and that the idea looks mad, but that so too did peace in Ireland, post-apartheid etc.
November 9, 2025 at 3:17 PM
Except he didn't say that.
He said that it would be silly, and show a lack of moral leadership, to forget that peace and denuclearisation should be the ultimate goal.
He explicitly points out that it's unlikely, and that the idea looks mad, but that so too did peace in Ireland, post-apartheid etc.
He said that it would be silly, and show a lack of moral leadership, to forget that peace and denuclearisation should be the ultimate goal.
He explicitly points out that it's unlikely, and that the idea looks mad, but that so too did peace in Ireland, post-apartheid etc.
"to eat their livers" is my new favourite four-word phrase to add to any sentence to make it suddenly 500% more chilling.
November 9, 2025 at 5:16 AM
"to eat their livers" is my new favourite four-word phrase to add to any sentence to make it suddenly 500% more chilling.
These promises were staggering short sighted of the PM and his campaign team.
"It didn't take a genius" pre-2024 to see that tax rises would be needed.
But instead, the PLP has been legitimately empowered to object now, by the "cast-iron" commitments they got then.
Gov only has itself to blame.
"It didn't take a genius" pre-2024 to see that tax rises would be needed.
But instead, the PLP has been legitimately empowered to object now, by the "cast-iron" commitments they got then.
Gov only has itself to blame.
November 7, 2025 at 2:25 PM
These promises were staggering short sighted of the PM and his campaign team.
"It didn't take a genius" pre-2024 to see that tax rises would be needed.
But instead, the PLP has been legitimately empowered to object now, by the "cast-iron" commitments they got then.
Gov only has itself to blame.
"It didn't take a genius" pre-2024 to see that tax rises would be needed.
But instead, the PLP has been legitimately empowered to object now, by the "cast-iron" commitments they got then.
Gov only has itself to blame.