Best Of

Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.

At last they're getting their PR sorted out.

Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.

The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.

It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.

See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.

As opposed to the Tory attack on Sure Start centres that has done so much long term harm to so many. It's just that those affected never had the voice or ready access to the media that fox hunters, farmers and private schools do.

Yup. The squealing from the toffs and their apologists as their little loopholes are closed off is a sign that the government is doing the right thing. It is about time the country was run on merit rather than privilege.

Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.

At last they're getting their PR sorted out.

Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.

The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.

It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.

See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.

Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.

Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.

We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).

We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.

The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).

Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?

Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.

At last they're getting their PR sorted out.

Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.

The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.

It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.

See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.

You need to have a fair few chips on your shoulder to want to be a Labour MP in the first place, it seems.

Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.

At last they're getting their PR sorted out.

Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.

Are you suggesting that reducing waiting lists and having a much-improved NHS, to give just one example, only benefits city dwellers?

Predominantly yes. As you would know if you lived in the country. There has been a concentration of NHS services into larger hubs, usually in cities and the closure of smaller hospitals and other emergency service facilities in market towns. Even where hospitals stay open they do not provide things like A&E. So you now have to travel much further to use those services. This is the reality for many people living in rural and semi-rural areas. Up until a few years ago my nearest A&E under a blue light was about 8 minutes away. It is now 35 - if you are lucky with the traffic. If you are not blue lighting it is the best part of an hour.

Take out Jeremy Clarkson, who has become a national treasure following Clarkson's Farm, and I'm not sure the traction that this protest would get today. But plenty more people understand how a farm works than did before he appeared with his Prime series.

Now of course for him it's a plaything and I think people realise that he is the exception. Because what the prog did very well was illustrate how thin farming margins can be and how many if not most are living on the edge.

You only have to look at rates of suicide of farmers to understand this.

Anecdotal evidence. I have my parents staying with me at the moment, and they have just been introduced to Clarkson’s Farm. They’ve binge-watched the whole of it in a week, and are totally astonished by how the numbers just don’t add up.

Now Jeremy has other commitments, and he hired a tractor driver to drive his tractor and a shepherd to drive his sheep - but the reality for many farmers, including many of his neighbours, is very different, something that was made abundently clear on the show. Clarkson can afford to invest into a restaurant and make money from televising his fight with the council*, but other farmers don’t have the same publicity for any of their attempts to vertically integrate their own supply chains.

It’s difficult to underestimate the effect of this series on the average British townie, and it’s certainly made support for the farmers against the government much higher than it would otherwise have been. Not the best of targets for Starmer and Reeves to have chosen.

Oops, forgot to add the *

* Whoever the feck at West Oxfordshire District Council thought it might be a good idea to allow Clarkson to bring video cameras into their meeting is a total idiot. Unless of course it was their aim to highlight what NIMBYism and local vendettas look like in practice, to a massive audience of people who generally hate NIMBYs and their local council.

You can film any council meeting nowadays and even live stream it. "Open government" might have been a joke in Yes Minister but this is a fundamental difference between the Conservative Party and our opponents. It was the Conservative Party which opened up local government in 1972 and it was us who allowed filming in council meetings. We take the view that by and large people being able to see what happens in meetings is a good thing.

The cringiest meetings are those Cabinet meetings where the cameras look in for three minutes of banter at the start.

Today’s education, thanks.

IMHO the council should be required to film it and put on their website, these things are cheap to do nowadays.

Take out Jeremy Clarkson, who has become a national treasure following Clarkson's Farm, and I'm not sure the traction that this protest would get today. But plenty more people understand how a farm works than did before he appeared with his Prime series.

Now of course for him it's a plaything and I think people realise that he is the exception. Because what the prog did very well was illustrate how thin farming margins can be and how many if not most are living on the edge.

You only have to look at rates of suicide of farmers to understand this.

Anecdotal evidence. I have my parents staying with me at the moment, and they have just been introduced to Clarkson’s Farm. They’ve binge-watched the whole of it in a week, and are totally astonished by how the numbers just don’t add up.

Now Jeremy has other commitments, and he hired a tractor driver to drive his tractor and a shepherd to drive his sheep - but the reality for many farmers, including many of his neighbours, is very different, something that was made abundently clear on the show. Clarkson can afford to invest into a restaurant and make money from televising his fight with the council*, but other farmers don’t have the same publicity for any of their attempts to vertically integrate their own supply chains.

It’s difficult to underestimate the effect of this series on the average British townie, and it’s certainly made support for the farmers against the government much higher than it would otherwise have been. Not the best of targets for Starmer and Reeves to have chosen.

Oops, forgot to add the *

* Whoever the feck at West Oxfordshire District Council thought it might be a good idea to allow Clarkson to bring video cameras into their meeting is a total idiot. Unless of course it was their aim to highlight what NIMBYism and local vendettas look like in practice, to a massive audience of people who generally hate NIMBYs and their local council.

I think people have the right to film all council meetings. A decision taken by central government, then, not one for the local council.

And if we could do a simulcast of being on our LNER apps I could prove to everyone that apart from the 10.45 departure there simply are no tickets available to buy to go from London to Newcastle on any day next week.

Simply not true. I am on the LNER website right now and there are tickets available for every train from 8.30am onwards.



Edit. This is for Monday next week but the same applies to the other days.

Ah ok. There are no open returns. You have to specify a return date.

Is this the end of the world? No. Is it an irritant? Yes.

LNER abolished return tickets last year IIRC.

Open returns, you mean. Why did they do that.

From February last year:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64548794

A trial in which return tickets have been scrapped to make fares simpler will be extended as part of a shake-up of the country's railways.

Transport Secretary Mark Harper confirmed that LNER, which operates trains along the East Coast mainline, will extend its trial of selling single tickets only on its routes from Spring.

If it continues to be successful it will be extended to other operators.

Thanks. That's super weird. Because soon someone will have the bright idea of putting two single tickets together and calling them a "return".

A day return used to be 105-110% of the price of a single though. Now it’s presumably double, depending on which train you take back home.

Nope - when LNER introduced their new prices the cost of the singles was halved so a single is now 50% of the old return price.

Take out Jeremy Clarkson, who has become a national treasure following Clarkson's Farm, and I'm not sure the traction that this protest would get today. But plenty more people understand how a farm works than did before he appeared with his Prime series.

Now of course for him it's a plaything and I think people realise that he is the exception. Because what the prog did very well was illustrate how thin farming margins can be and how many if not most are living on the edge.

You only have to look at rates of suicide of farmers to understand this.

Anecdotal evidence. I have my parents staying with me at the moment, and they have just been introduced to Clarkson’s Farm. They’ve binge-watched the whole of it in a week, and are totally astonished by how the numbers just don’t add up.

Now Jeremy has other commitments, and he hired a tractor driver to drive his tractor and a shepherd to drive his sheep - but the reality for many farmers, including many of his neighbours, is very different, something that was made abundently clear on the show. Clarkson can afford to invest into a restaurant and make money from televising his fight with the council*, but other farmers don’t have the same publicity for any of their attempts to vertically integrate their own supply chains.

It’s difficult to underestimate the effect of this series on the average British townie, and it’s certainly made support for the farmers against the government much higher than it would otherwise have been. Not the best of targets for Starmer and Reeves to have chosen.

Oops, forgot to add the *

* Whoever the feck at West Oxfordshire District Council thought it might be a good idea to allow Clarkson to bring video cameras into their meeting is a total idiot. Unless of course it was their aim to highlight what NIMBYism and local vendettas look like in practice, to a massive audience of people who generally hate NIMBYs and their local council.

You can film any council meeting nowadays and even live stream it. "Open government" might have been a joke in Yes Minister but this is a fundamental difference between the Conservative Party and our opponents. It was the Conservative Party which opened up local government in 1972 and it was us who allowed filming in council meetings. We take the view that by and large people being able to see what happens in meetings is a good thing.

The cringiest meetings are those Cabinet meetings where the cameras look in for three minutes of banter at the start.

Take out Jeremy Clarkson, who has become a national treasure following Clarkson's Farm, and I'm not sure the traction that this protest would get today. But plenty more people understand how a farm works than did before he appeared with his Prime series.

Now of course for him it's a plaything and I think people realise that he is the exception. Because what the prog did very well was illustrate how thin farming margins can be and how many if not most are living on the edge.

You only have to look at rates of suicide of farmers to understand this.

Anecdotal evidence. I have my parents staying with me at the moment, and they have just been introduced to Clarkson’s Farm. They’ve binge-watched the whole of it in a week, and are totally astonished by how the numbers just don’t add up.

Now Jeremy has other commitments, and he hired a tractor driver to drive his tractor and a shepherd to drive his sheep - but the reality for many farmers, including many of his neighbours, is very different, something that was made abundently clear on the show. Clarkson can afford to invest into a restaurant and make money from televising his fight with the council*, but other farmers don’t have the same publicity for any of their attempts to vertically integrate their own supply chains.

It’s difficult to underestimate the effect of this series on the average British townie, and it’s certainly made support for the farmers against the government much higher than it would otherwise have been. Not the best of targets for Starmer and Reeves to have chosen.

Oops, forgot to add the *

* Whoever the feck at West Oxfordshire District Council thought it might be a good idea to allow Clarkson to bring video cameras into their meeting is a total idiot. Unless of course it was their aim to highlight what NIMBYism and local vendettas look like in practice, to a massive audience of people who generally hate NIMBYs and their local council.

I think people have the right to film all council meetings. A decision taken by central government, then, not one for the local council.

As it should be. One of the worst things that has happend in recent years in local government is the growth of cabinets deciding things behind closed doors with even many councillors excluded until the final vote.