🚨NEW: Barclays is to cut 5,000 jobs that will be replaced by AI, saving almost 60% of its costs in supporting roles

JUST IN: Google co-founder Larry Page has reportedly moved into a $173M home in Miami to avoid $15B of California taxes

They contribute more to this economy than the so called British patriots.

Fuck me £121 my direct debit for water a month, what do all you other families pay a month? Is £121 high - feels it 🙃

Pharmacists who conned the NHS out of £1.3million by dispensing fake prescriptions for cancer medication are jailed for a total of 12 years trib.al/OEy7bVR

Landlords offered bumper rents to evict tenants and house small boat migrants as Labour accused of 'outrageous racket' in broken Britain trib.al/WSjDV6a

JUST IN: Google co-founder Larry Page has reportedly moved into a $173M home in Miami to avoid $15B of California taxes

this California wealth tax thing is just incredible. so in October 2025, a California healthcare union proposed a "one time" 5% tax on any billionaire's wealth. the ballot measure will be voted on next month. In early December 2025, California announced that it would be a retroactive tax if passed, applying to anyone with CA residency as of Jan 1, 2026. The objective is to pay for Medi-Cal, California's incredibly dysfunctional healthcare system. (which also functions as a glorified welfare apparatus, but that's a discussion for another time). polls reveal that the CA electorate is split around 50/50 on the tax, but prediction markets only give Prop 40 a ~23% chance of passing (there are competing measures on the ballet that would nullify it). there are 200 billionaires in CA, worth collectively somewhere between $2.3 and $2.6 trillion. 5% of that is around $100b, accounting for a small amount of attrition. proponents of the tax forecasted a significant windfall, assuming only a 10% departure rate. supporters thought they were being clever with the retroactive concept. no billionares would leave CA in the few short months between the tax being proposed and the residency cutoff date, without the tax even having passed yet, right? well as it turns out, they did. a new paper [1] from two academics at Stanford called "The Net Present Value of the California Billionaire Tax Act", argues that not only did more billionaires leave due to the proposed tax than its proponents expected, but that the value of the tax, if it does pass, is actually negative. proponents of the tax only assumed 10% avoidance, that is, only 10% of the taxable base of targeted billionaires would leave CA within the very short Oct-Dec 2025 window. Jaros and Rauh, the Stanford academics, find that a lower bound of 28.6% of the taxable base managed to leave. just based on known departures, those departures total $577b in net worth, or $28.8b in potential tax lost. this of course does not capture everyone (many left without announcing their departure), so the authors normalize to departure rates estimated from other wealth tax events, and apply other discounts for litigation, arriving arrive at a figure of only $28-$36b in forecasted tax revenues. but this isn't all! all of the income taxes paid by the departed billionaires are also forsaken. the authors estimate that CA billionaires pay $3.3- 5.8b in annual income taxes. they assume a midpoint of $2b lost in annual collections from departed billionaires. the net present value of that lost income stream is -$68.9 billion. so when you add it all up you get: + $30b one-time tax windfall (estimated) - $69b in present value of lost future income taxes = - 38.9b overall net present value of the tax of course, this analysis is highly estimate driven. the authors simulate the parameters 100k times and find a negative NPV of the implemented tax 85 percent of the time. and if the tax doesn't pass, which it's not looking like it will, California still ended up losing at least $577b in departed net worth, and they have permanently poisoned the well with entrepreneurs who will now worry about future wealth taxes. [1]: nber.org/system/files/workin…

Hearing rumours that ITV News are livid that they spent £1m and all they got was a few people (0.1%) with dodgy views out of thousands of councillors, officials, staff and candidates. They're livid that it's proven Reform is sound and is likely to increase their vote share.

🚨 NEW: Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh is reportedly set to reject Rosebank for oil drilling in the North Sea She believes it would do less for UK energy security than Jackdaw as most of its oil would be exported

The shocking figure of 7 million migrants into the UK since 2000 is “net migration” - immigration minus emigration. The total number is far higher. Over 18.5 million immigrants came in to the UK between 1997 and 2024. ONS source in my reply.

🚨 BREAKING: The Government has officially approved the Jackdaw gas field for North Sea drilling It's the UK’s largest known untapped gas reserve and will start to supply gas to British homes and businesses from the end of this month

Why did the BBC crop the photo? Ah. I see….

Normally wouldn't post an interview transcript of this length, but if you're interested in keeping tabs on Cabinet support for Shabana Mahmood's immigration reforms, this is worth a read from Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh Sophy Ridge: Just to be crystal clear: Do you support plans for people to have lived in the UK for 15 years before they can get permanent residency? Miatta Fahnbulleh: The first thing I'd say, because there's been a lot of speculation, Shabana has got a really tough job and I think a home secretary getting a grip on small boats crossings is something that all of us want to see. SR: Can I just come in? I really just want a straight answer. Do you support plans for people to live in the UK for 15 years before they get permanent residency? MF: Look, we have got to reform our immigration system and my view is that we need a system that is based on the principle of compassion, contribution. And so there is a package of reforms the Home Secretary has been consulting on, she's looking at the range of responses and she will come out with the measures that we take forward. But the key thing I would say is no one can look at our immigration system, and I say this as someone that came into this country as a refugee, and not believe that it's broken and not believe that we need to fundamentally reform it. But our principle has to be a system where we've got control, but ultimately a system that when people do come to this country, they are able to integrate, they are able to contribute, and that we both respect but also value that contribution. SR: Okay. You haven't, in any part of that answer, said that you agree with these reforms. I'm just going to read you the definition of collective responsibility: "Decisions made by the cabinet are binding on all members of the government. This means if a minister disagrees with the government policy, he or she must still publicly support it". So I'm going to ask you a third time, do you support plans for people to have to live in the UK for 15 years before they can get permanent residency? MF: I support reforms that say that people have to contribute and make a contribution to this country, in order to get citizenship. We are consulting on the package of reforms that we'll put forward and the Home Secretary, as you can imagine, having looked at all the responses, will set out what the final position is. SR: Do you support the plans or not? It's my fourth time asking. MF: So I absolutely support the plans to reform our immigration system. It is broken SR: I'm asking you something super specific here. Do you support plans for people to live in the UK for 15 years before you get permanent residency? MF: The Home Secretary is consulting on those plans, and she will set up the government's final position. SR: You can't say whether you support that or not? MF: The Home Secretary is consulting. Look, we absolutely need to reform our immigration system. I support the reforms. And by the way, it is not easy to reform our immigration system. So I 100% back Shabana Mahmood and everything she is trying to do, but there is a package of reforms. We are consulting in the way that government always does. And the Home Secretary, rightly having looked at all the responses to the consultation, will set out the final package that ultimately will do the job of reforming our immigration system based on the principle of control, which we absolutely must do. But critically, a system that ensures that people make a contribution and when they make a contribution, they are integrated into our communities so that we can have diverse communities, like my one in Peckham, in which people can live together and can ensure that they are making the contribution to get to the country and the society that we want. SR: I know you've got to go, but I think from what you've said, it's pretty clear that you don't support waiting 15 years for permanent residency. So I'm just going to give you one chance to correct that if that's not your view MF: Don't put words in my mouth. The key point is we are consulting... SR: I'm not. I'm saying, this is your chance to correct that if that is not your view, because this is the impression you've given. So if you don't think that, tell us now. MF: We are consulting on the package of proposals that were put forward. The Home Secretary is looking at the consultation and she will set out our final position. But what I absolutely back Shabana on is the need to reform our immigration system, because it is fundamentally broken. And I also fundamentally support the principles that we have got to control our borders, because everyone expects us to do that, and critically, that we have to have a system in which people contribute and when they contribute, they are able to become citizens and they are able to be integrated into our community. That is an immigration system that makes sense. That is an immigration system that will build public concern. And she's absolutely right to try and deliver that immigration system.

Approving the drilling of Jackdaw is the wrong decision on every front. It won't bring down bills, it creates barely any jobs, and it undermines our climate commitments. True energy security comes from rapidly expanding homegrown renewables, not continuing our reliance on volatile fossil fuels. The idea that we need more drilling to fund them is exactly what the fossil fuel lobby wants us to believe.