Numpty of the Year #2

+The race to be Numpty of the Year 2024 is definitely on. We’re only in January, but my second nominee appeared in a Daily Mail story about Labour’s proposed brutal attack on private schools. Here’s a quote from the story:

‘For my wife and me, Labour's plans to hike private school fees by 20 per cent could well be the difference between our son continuing in the school he knows and loves or moving to a state school. We are not a wealthy family. I work as an analyst in the  NHS and my wife drafts contracts as a lawyer at an IT company. Together, we earn in the lower £100,000s. We knew school fees would be expensive, but adding 20 per cent  VAT could be too much for us to manage.’

This man doesn’t actually know what wealth is. He’s in the global top 1% and clearly wants little Johnny to join him. But yes, people do struggle on the ‘lower £100,000s’ these days. What I wonder does ‘lower £100,000s mean? £200,000? £300,000? Our chap works for the NHS as an ‘analyst.’ not a doctor or nurse but a backroom pro whose contribution is to analyse. What exactly is anybody's guess. And who pays his wage? Maybe he’s forgotten. In normal times the Daily Mail would be describing NHS ‘analysts’ as surplus-to-requirements faceless pen pushers but in this election year they have clearly found a use for public sector workers (of the right type).

Perhaps our hero analyses NHS waiting lists. Perhaps he might also have concerns about his BUPA subscription (or, I wonder does the NHS pay for private healthcare insurance?) Anyway, he’s made it on to the Numpty award list for being a self-centred prick.
​
+OFCOM’s suggestion that the way forward for Royal Mail’s unsteady looking business is to reduce the number of deliveries we get, maybe down to three a week. A bit like it is now. They obviously haven’t taken into account the feelings of people who won’t get their birthday cards on time. But this is a tale of depressing familiarity. If fewer people are participating in a certain economic activity, the response is generally to reduce the availability of that activity—like reducing the number of bus services because there aren’t enough passengers to make a profit. And for the poor sods that still have to use the service, ramp up the price to see them off too. Amazingly for this government, in the case of buses, they have introduced and are subsidising fares to a capped level of £2 (going up to £2.50 later I believe) so it will be interesting to see what impact this has had on usage. And if as I believe it’s got more people on to buses then we should also look for research on the social, (i.e. harder to identify in economic terms) benefits of greater travel freedom. Perhaps the same approach could somehow be applied to Royal Mail. Perhaps it should be nationalised as a first step. Just like Starmer promised.