Tory support is in the 30+% range, however it has been wiped out on PB (although there is a large reservoir of potential support). @hyufd is right in that PB is no longer representative of Tory support.
Why? What is different about PB? Age?, Political awareness? Intelligence? What?
What is someone who still happily supports the Tories like?
The average Tory voter is now a skilled working class Leave voter or a pensioner who voted Leave.
The average PB poster however is a middle class graduate who voted Remain or at most voted Leave but only to go to EEA
Makes sense, but it is quite dramatic. So it will all be down to how many of each group there are and where they live.
Any reason for limiting it to 'skilled working class leave'. What about 'unskilled leavers'? Or do you think they will be mainly Labour or non voters anyway?
Unskilled voters, certainly if they live in social housing will still be mainly Labour even if they voted Leave
The big risk for the Tories in changing their demographic is at some time they lose their safe Southern seats to the LDs, but are in a tight fights with Labour in their new joint heartlands.
PS That is just a fantasy on my part and I don't see it happening on any scale that could wipe out the Tories from the South, but wouldn't it be a change to see the LDs with hundreds of safe seats and the Tories and Labour scraping for 2nd place in the previous Labour heartlands and sharing the spoils.
Must stop dreaming now.
It's a very limited part of the South where the Lib Dems would be competitive. They're out of the running in most of the South West, along with Essex, and Kent. They could gain seats down the M3 and M4 corridors.
She’s the Foreign Secretary, currently dealing with Ukraine, Iraq and a bunch of other problems in the world, as well as the leadership campaign.
Why would she want to spend half an hour talking about the energy problem with an idiot like Robinson, when the complex, carefully-considered, multi-agency response that is required, is still a few weeks away?
The problem is mainstream media entitlement in a digital world.
That said, when she announces the plan, first to Parliament as these things should be, it will be reasonable for her to speak to the media about the plan.
All those things were true when Liz Truss agreed to the interview but she still agreed to it. Withdrawing now shows a lack of integrity and has echoes of the current PM relationship with oaths and agreements. And this is the same candidate who believes she doesn't need an ethics advisor because she has always acted ethically. It beggars belief to see how many people are willing to contort themselves in knots to make a claim that the Prime Minister is somehow above such mundane things as telling the truth and keeping one's word.
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
Unless you are doing something very odd with water it should be a dramatic drop in what you pay. When we moved into our latest house we had a meter put in immediately it cost us about a 1/3rd of what the previous owners were paying (I guess because it is a very large house and if not metered based upon rateable value). There were 4 of us. There were only 2 in the previous owner's family and they only lived here part time.
Something many people don't know is if all your rainwater goes to soakaways you can get a reduction in your sewage charge, but you have to claim it.
We saved masses on meters on three properties* before having children. Moving to our current house, we asked for a meter but was told it was not possible as we were on a shared water main with other properties**, but were instead offered an asessed bill based on occupancy which was ~1/2 of the rates-based tariff. We now have children, but haven't been asked to update our info at any point (and nor are we required to update them, as far as I can see). Suspect we might still save a bit on a meter versus the rated-value, which makes you wonder who the hell is using swimming pools worth of excess water if meter charges are on average supposed to be cost neutral.
*consecutively, not concurrently, we can only afford one property at a time **which is bollox as our adjoining neighbours have one under the sink fitted some years before we moved in - I guess it does mean it can't be fitted in the street as normal for houses as there's only one pipe coming off to serve 8 properties
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
I like the story of Elephant and Castle being named after Le Dauphin Castille.
Supporting evidence for which I can find nowhere.
Isn't it something to do with La Infanta de Castile?
Didn't we just do this? I've always loved the fact that such a pedestrian spot in SE London has such an exotic name. It's not the same now they've demolished the shopping centre, though.
It was one of the worst places around central London. It may not be the same, it may be less distinctive but it is better and safer already, with more to come.
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
Because it's irreversible other than that, so it's a rare example of long term planning by them.
I'm very glad our water bill is unmetered. Running the kids baths alone would consume a lot of water that would take us past the bill we pay.
An elderly couple who take showers will consume a lot less water than a family will with young kids etc. If grandparents switch to get a better deal on a meter then the water company gets its reward from that if the next occupiers of the home are a family paying considerably more extra than what the grandparents had saved.
Have you actually done the numbers Bart? I hear what you are saying, but in our previous house we would have been in the same situation as you (2 youngsters from babies) and it was still cheaper to be metered. It does seem to be biased to get you on the meter.
Turning the question round, what's in it for the water company? They have to pay to install and maintain water meters where there were none before, so what do they get out of it?
Party constitutions do not overrule the supremacy of parliament. The idea that a particular configuration of government, arising from the confidence of the HoC following an election, can be ruled out in advance is nonsense. It is meaningless and of course unenforceable.
Somebody should have told Starmer that when Brown poured the poison in his ear.
Does it matter, apart from showing Starmer is no Machiavelli? How would the SNP enter a coalition when it refuses to get involved in non-Scottish matters, thus ruling itself out of every Cabinet position bar one?
Unsurprisingly, the Westminster Bubble looks at this from a Labour point of view. Nobody every considers how the SNP views the situation. That the SNP would ever want to enter a coalition government in London is profoundly unlikely. So Starmer’s kite was all trappings and no substance. It was very clearly aimed at an English audience, not an Irish, Scottish or Welsh one.
It is all a bit odd as Labour are so obviously now a British nationalist party on a strict interpretation of the term 'nationalist' - SKS imitating St George with the Flag in his office, and so on. And they are cooperating/in coalition with the Tories in many Scottish councils.
Edit: and see that chap I quoted earlier this morning - he was concerned about the SDLP, also 'nationalist' so now not permissible allies.
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
Substitution.
The price of a pair of clippers is £11.99 on Amazon - less than a haircut - and a lot of us got pretty used to them during lockdown.
Ditto beer. If the price of a pint in the pub is £14, and the price of four cans round a mate's house is a fiver... you can see how quickly businesses are going to fold.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.
In Australia many place names are named after aboriginal words or phrases for that area. I recall a story about one town where the settlers asked the aborigines for the name and the aborigines took the piss out of them and gave a rude phrase which what then adopted as the town's name by the European settlers not realising what they were calling themselves.
Unfortunately I can't remember the town, or what it allegedly meant, and it's possibly apocryphal but it's a fun story.
The classic in Sydney is a central suburb called Wooloomooloo, which is obviously an Aboriginal name. People going over from England try to pronounce it as "Woo-loo-moo-loo". The Aussies love that and the ensuing hilarity ensures that said English person never pronounces it wrong again. It sounds like "wuh-luh-muh-loo".
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
Unless you are doing something very odd with water it should be a dramatic drop in what you pay. When we moved into our latest house we had a meter put in immediately it cost us about a 1/3rd of what the previous owners were paying (I guess because it is a very large house and if not metered based upon rateable value). There were 4 of us. There were only 2 in the previous owner's family and they only lived here part time.
Something many people don't know is if all your rainwater goes to soakaways you can get a reduction in your sewage charge, but you have to claim it.
We saved masses on meters on three properties* before having children. Moving to our current house, we asked for a meter but was told it was not possible as we were on a shared water main with other properties**, but were instead offered an asessed bill based on occupancy which was ~1/2 of the rates-based tariff. We now have children, but haven't been asked to update our info at any point (and nor are we required to update them, as far as I can see). Suspect we might still save a bit on a meter versus the rated-value, which makes you wonder who the hell is using swimming pools worth of excess water if meter charges are on average supposed to be cost neutral.
*consecutively, not concurrently, we can only afford one property at a time **which is bollox as our adjoining neighbours have one under the sink fitted some years before we moved in - I guess it does mean it can't be fitted in the street as normal for houses as there's only one pipe coming off to serve 8 properties
Ohhhh I was about to jump in on your comment before seeing the ** as we are in the same situation in our holiday home and we have a meter fitted under our sink also. Done just a few years ago. And of course we use next to nothing in a very small, only occasionally occupied house. It is also a smart meter. Didn't know they did those for water until we got one.
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
You can get 2 sets of hairclippers off amazon for less than that
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
I was sceptical at first, but to be honest it is the best thing I have done with water and it does have the effect of making you want to reduce water waste
It is not to do with them wanting you to pay less than now, but all to do with you paying for actual water usage and not based on your rateable value
I don't have any water waste. However, I can be tight as a knat's chuff at times and fear I would do things like not flush and shower less if I was on a meter!
I know my current bill is based on rateable value but can't see how this knowledge helps me calc which is best course of action. Surely higher rateable value properties correlate with higher water usage anyway??
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
Because it's irreversible other than that, so it's a rare example of long term planning by them.
I'm very glad our water bill is unmetered. Running the kids baths alone would consume a lot of water that would take us past the bill we pay.
An elderly couple who take showers will consume a lot less water than a family will with young kids etc. If grandparents switch to get a better deal on a meter then the water company gets its reward from that if the next occupiers of the home are a family paying considerably more extra than what the grandparents had saved.
Have you actually done the numbers Bart? I hear what you are saying, but in our previous house we would have been in the same situation as you (2 youngsters from babies) and it was still cheaper to be metered. It does seem to be biased to get you on the meter.
Turning the question round, what's in it for the water company? They have to pay to install and maintain water meters where there were none before, so what do they get out of it?
Future income more closely related to usage, and a faster warning of any abnormalities such as leaky pipes.
A Liz Truss version of the Scott Parker interview.
Yeah, this budget was really crap and disappointing but what can you expect? Rishi, Govey and Hunt won't work for me, and Boris kicked out the rest of the talent ages ago. So I've been left with Kwasi, Redwood and Rees-Mogg to run the Treasury!! Can you believe it! Not to mention Suella at the Home Office, even I'm scared what she might come up with. Anyway off to the G7 next, then dealing with Ukraine.....hope things turnaround somehow.
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
Because it's irreversible other than that, so it's a rare example of long term planning by them.
I'm very glad our water bill is unmetered. Running the kids baths alone would consume a lot of water that would take us past the bill we pay.
An elderly couple who take showers will consume a lot less water than a family will with young kids etc. If grandparents switch to get a better deal on a meter then the water company gets its reward from that if the next occupiers of the home are a family paying considerably more extra than what the grandparents had saved.
Have you actually done the numbers Bart? I hear what you are saying, but in our previous house we would have been in the same situation as you (2 youngsters from babies) and it was still cheaper to be metered. It does seem to be biased to get you on the meter.
Turning the question round, what's in it for the water company? They have to pay to install and maintain water meters where there were none before, so what do they get out of it?
Good question. In addition to data to optimise pricing and planning I assume they are financially encouraged to do so by the Govt. But I don't know that.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.
In Australia many place names are named after aboriginal words or phrases for that area. I recall a story about one town where the settlers asked the aborigines for the name and the aborigines took the piss out of them and gave a rude phrase which what then adopted as the town's name by the European settlers not realising what they were calling themselves.
Unfortunately I can't remember the town, or what it allegedly meant, and it's possibly apocryphal but it's a fun story.
The classic in Sydney is a central suburb called Wooloomooloo, which is obviously an Aboriginal name. People going over from England try to pronounce it as "Woo-loo-moo-loo". The Aussies love that and the ensuing hilarity ensures that said English person never pronounces it wrong again. It sounds like "wuh-luh-muh-loo".
Party constitutions do not overrule the supremacy of parliament. The idea that a particular configuration of government, arising from the confidence of the HoC following an election, can be ruled out in advance is nonsense. It is meaningless and of course unenforceable.
Somebody should have told Starmer that when Brown poured the poison in his ear.
Does it matter, apart from showing Starmer is no Machiavelli? How would the SNP enter a coalition when it refuses to get involved in non-Scottish matters, thus ruling itself out of every Cabinet position bar one?
Unsurprisingly, the Westminster Bubble looks at this from a Labour point of view. Nobody every considers how the SNP views the situation. That the SNP would ever want to enter a coalition government in London is profoundly unlikely. So Starmer’s kite was all trappings and no substance. It was very clearly aimed at an English audience, not an Irish, Scottish or Welsh one.
It is all a bit odd as Labour are so obviously now a British nationalist party on a strict interpretation of the term 'nationalist' - SKS imitating St George with the Flag in his office, and so on. And they are cooperating/in coalition with the Tories in many Scottish councils.
Edit: and see that chap I quoted earlier this morning - he was concerned about the SDLP, also 'nationalist' so now not permissible allies.
English Labour ignore Wales, Scotland and N Ireland. Honestly, is anyone remotely surprised?
The Red Tories become more Tory than Red with every passing week.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
I like the story of Elephant and Castle being named after Le Dauphin Castille.
Supporting evidence for which I can find nowhere.
Isn't it something to do with La Infanta de Castile?
Didn't we just do this? I've always loved the fact that such a pedestrian spot in SE London has such an exotic name. It's not the same now they've demolished the shopping centre, though.
It was one of the worst places around central London. It may not be the same, it may be less distinctive but it is better and safer already, with more to come.
On her first trip to London, I had to talk Mrs Sandpit out of wanting to go there. There’s no elephants, and definitely no castle.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.
In Australia many place names are named after aboriginal words or phrases for that area. I recall a story about one town where the settlers asked the aborigines for the name and the aborigines took the piss out of them and gave a rude phrase which what then adopted as the town's name by the European settlers not realising what they were calling themselves.
Unfortunately I can't remember the town, or what it allegedly meant, and it's possibly apocryphal but it's a fun story.
The classic in Sydney is a central suburb called Wooloomooloo, which is obviously an Aboriginal name. People going over from England try to pronounce it as "Woo-loo-moo-loo". The Aussies love that and the ensuing hilarity ensures that said English person never pronounces it wrong again. It sounds like "wuh-luh-muh-loo".
Torpenhow Hill says hello!
Happisburgh.
Uttoxeter is pronounced by some locals (including some of my family members) as Uttcheter.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.
In Australia many place names are named after aboriginal words or phrases for that area. I recall a story about one town where the settlers asked the aborigines for the name and the aborigines took the piss out of them and gave a rude phrase which what then adopted as the town's name by the European settlers not realising what they were calling themselves.
Unfortunately I can't remember the town, or what it allegedly meant, and it's possibly apocryphal but it's a fun story.
Don't have to go so far, thouhg. One of the Pre-Raphaelites was 'persuaded' to title a poem after the 'wrong' name for a Highland well, which would get him the ban hammer instantly on PB today if OGH spoke the Gaelic.
One of my favourites along these lines is the peaks in Wales named Glyder Fawr and Glyder Fach - loose translation (I was told) is big pile of rocks and little pile of rocks. Looking it up, it seems to be based on glyder being a corruption of gludair.
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
Substitution.
The price of a pair of clippers is £11.99 on Amazon - less than a haircut - and a lot of us got pretty used to them during lockdown.
Ditto beer. If the price of a pint in the pub is £14, and the price of four cans round a mate's house is a fiver... you can see how quickly businesses are going to fold.
Not if it's £40 for your mate to have his light and heating on.
Party constitutions do not overrule the supremacy of parliament. The idea that a particular configuration of government, arising from the confidence of the HoC following an election, can be ruled out in advance is nonsense. It is meaningless and of course unenforceable.
Somebody should have told Starmer that when Brown poured the poison in his ear.
Does it matter, apart from showing Starmer is no Machiavelli? How would the SNP enter a coalition when it refuses to get involved in non-Scottish matters, thus ruling itself out of every Cabinet position bar one?
Unsurprisingly, the Westminster Bubble looks at this from a Labour point of view. Nobody every considers how the SNP views the situation. That the SNP would ever want to enter a coalition government in London is profoundly unlikely. So Starmer’s kite was all trappings and no substance. It was very clearly aimed at an English audience, not an Irish, Scottish or Welsh one.
The possibilities after the next election are various; and confused states more likely than usual. Absolutely everything everyone says about what is ruled in and ruled out has no meaning.
On that golden morning after the election, there is a country to run, a government to form, glittering prizes await and these can be snatched and snatched away by momentary actions or lapses. The newly elected House of Commons has not even met but is supreme. There are no ways of enforcing earlier pledges however solemn, when put up against 'the will of the people' and 'the sovereignty of the commons'.
This is all good, and PBers of all opinions will enjoy every minute of it, if there is a long scrum and the ball all over the place.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.
In Australia many place names are named after aboriginal words or phrases for that area. I recall a story about one town where the settlers asked the aborigines for the name and the aborigines took the piss out of them and gave a rude phrase which what then adopted as the town's name by the European settlers not realising what they were calling themselves.
Unfortunately I can't remember the town, or what it allegedly meant, and it's possibly apocryphal but it's a fun story.
The classic in Sydney is a central suburb called Wooloomooloo, which is obviously an Aboriginal name. People going over from England try to pronounce it as "Woo-loo-moo-loo". The Aussies love that and the ensuing hilarity ensures that said English person never pronounces it wrong again. It sounds like "wuh-luh-muh-loo".
It's where the Philosopher's Drinking Song was written.
Interesting from Sky's business editor and his last sentence is spot on:
In January the French government forced state-owned energy provider EDF to cap price rises at 4% for a year - could the same be done in the UK and does it mean the French are better off?
The measure has cost €8.4bn (£7bn) and will protect the majority of households from the huge energy bills hikes seen here in the UK.
The typical German or Italian household, for example, is currently paying more for their energy than the typical UK household. It is also worth bearing in mind that energy tariffs in the UK are traditionally lower than in continental Europe - it is just that UK households tend to consume more energy due to the UK's older, draughtier housing stock.
France is something of an outlier because the vast majority of its energy comes from nuclear - so it is less exposed to higher gas, oil or coal prices. France's nuclear fleet is also aging and half of it is offline at present - so France may in time end up paying more as it seeks alternative energy sources. France is also an outlier because President Emmanuel Macron has frozen energy prices. But that is going to come at a huge cost to the French state. He has just spent €12bn alone on buying the remaining 16% of EDF, the country's main electricity provider, that the government did not already own. He did this because this price freeze is going to be ruinously expensive for EDF. The cost of this support may only become clear over time.
Is nationalisation the answer?
France, as I say, is an outlier in that it is nationalising EDF, its main electricity provider, but that is mainly because that company (which has always been state-controlled) is a debt-laden basket case facing vast capital expenditure in the coming years because Mr Macron wants a vast roll-out of new nuclear power plants.
That kind of expenditure can only be back-stopped by French taxpayers. And note that France is not taking the same approach with its gas suppliers. Nor are comparable economies like Germany.
Could the UK cap prices at 4%?
We could - but the cost to the taxpayer (as it will be in France) would be immense. And why would you want to subsidise those households that can afford to pay more rather than try and target support at those in most need?
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
I was sceptical at first, but to be honest it is the best thing I have done with water and it does have the effect of making you want to reduce water waste
It is not to do with them wanting you to pay less than now, but all to do with you paying for actual water usage and not based on your rateable value
I don't have any water waste. However, I can be tight as a knat's chuff at times and fear I would do things like not flush and shower less if I was on a meter!
I know my current bill is based on rateable value but can't see how this knowledge helps me calc which is best course of action. Surely higher rateable value properties correlate with higher water usage anyway??
Surely it helps you ?
Surely higher rateable value properties correlate with higher water usage anyway??
No, why would it - water use correlates with size of household, not the size of house. Now I know house and household are generally correlated but a larger house won't use more water simply because it's larger. Neither frankly should it use particularly more electricity *unless it's electrically heated. Gas* is the only thing that correlates with house size.
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
I was sceptical at first, but to be honest it is the best thing I have done with water and it does have the effect of making you want to reduce water waste
It is not to do with them wanting you to pay less than now, but all to do with you paying for actual water usage and not based on your rateable value
I don't have any water waste. However, I can be tight as a knat's chuff at times and fear I would do things like not flush and shower less if I was on a meter!
I know my current bill is based on rateable value but can't see how this knowledge helps me calc which is best course of action. Surely higher rateable value properties correlate with higher water usage anyway??
On the last, to some extent if larger house -> greater occupancy, but only based on that really. After all - drinking, washing (people and clothes), flushing toilets, there's not that much else and that's all person-dependent more than anything. Unless you're using lots of hosepipe water for the garden (as opposed to water butts etc) or washing cars etc.
There's also the fact to consider that while poor people in cheap houses drink water, rich people in big houses drink champagne (or at the very least, Perrier) so make a big saving on tap drinking water consumption
That’s awfully harsh. Yes, they went down to a rugby score last weekend, but they only just came up and had some horrible fixtures at the start of their season.
Doesn't sound like much of a rugby match. Just three penatlies.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
Interestingly, the two countries names mean quite different things of a similar nature. 'Australia' means 'southern continent', while 'Austria' is an Anglicisation of 'Osterreich' (sp?), meaning 'Eastern Empire'. Both of which are interesting, because it is much more common for a given country to view itself as the middle of things (cf China) - though understandable why in each case.
It wasn't so obvious to me why Österreich is so-called, so I looked it up on Wikipedia:
"The German name for Austria, Österreich, derives from the Old High German Ostarrîchi, which meant "eastern realm" and which first appeared in the "Ostarrîchi document" of 996.[17][18] This word is probably a translation of Medieval Latin Marchia orientalis into a local (Bavarian) dialect.
Austria was a prefecture of Bavaria created in 976. The word "Austria" is a Latinisation of the German name and was first recorded in the 12th century.[19] At the time, the Danube basin of Austria (Upper and Lower Austria) was the easternmost extent of Bavaria."
Is it more common for a country to call itself something like "middle" (I can only think of Zhōngguó - China) than its direction from elsewhere? Other examples of this include Nippon, maybe Norge, and Timór Lorosa'e
Lots of countries seem to be named after the people that live(d) there. Some after individuals. Some are stuck with silly names given by colonists - is Venezuela really much like Venice, or New Zealand anything like Zeeland?
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
I was sceptical at first, but to be honest it is the best thing I have done with water and it does have the effect of making you want to reduce water waste
It is not to do with them wanting you to pay less than now, but all to do with you paying for actual water usage and not based on your rateable value
I don't have any water waste. However, I can be tight as a knat's chuff at times and fear I would do things like not flush and shower less if I was on a meter!
I know my current bill is based on rateable value but can't see how this knowledge helps me calc which is best course of action. Surely higher rateable value properties correlate with higher water usage anyway??
On the last, to some extent if larger house -> greater occupancy, but only based on that really. After all - drinking, washing (people and clothes), flushing toilets, there's not that much else and that's all person-dependent more than anything. Unless you're using lots of hosepipe water for the garden (as opposed to water butts etc) or washing cars etc.
There's also the fact to consider that while poor people in cheap houses drink water, rich people in big houses drink champagne (or at the very least, Perrier) so make a big saving on tap drinking water consumption
The ice cubes in the San Pelegrino or GnT, are usually tap water though.
That’s awfully harsh. Yes, they went down to a rugby score last weekend, but they only just came up and had some horrible fixtures at the start of their season.
Doesn't sound like much of a rugby match. Just three penatlies.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
I like the story of Elephant and Castle being named after Le Dauphin Castille.
Supporting evidence for which I can find nowhere.
Isn't it something to do with La Infanta de Castile?
Didn't we just do this? I've always loved the fact that such a pedestrian spot in SE London has such an exotic name. It's not the same now they've demolished the shopping centre, though.
It was one of the worst places around central London. It may not be the same, it may be less distinctive but it is better and safer already, with more to come.
I never felt remotely unsafe in Elephant. It has lost a lot of its character, becoming part of that homogenised kind of feel you get everywhere they put up these new towers, like you could be anywhere in the world. I'm sure that most people like it and it's a good thing etc, but something has certainly been lost in the process.
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
I was sceptical at first, but to be honest it is the best thing I have done with water and it does have the effect of making you want to reduce water waste
It is not to do with them wanting you to pay less than now, but all to do with you paying for actual water usage and not based on your rateable value
I don't have any water waste. However, I can be tight as a knat's chuff at times and fear I would do things like not flush and shower less if I was on a meter!
I know my current bill is based on rateable value but can't see how this knowledge helps me calc which is best course of action. Surely higher rateable value properties correlate with higher water usage anyway??
Surely it helps you ?
Surely higher rateable value properties correlate with higher water usage anyway??
No, why would it - water use correlates with size of household, not the size of house. Now I know house and household are generally correlated but a larger house won't use more water simply because it's larger. Neither frankly should it use particularly more electricity unless it's electrically heated. Gas is the only thing that correlates with house size.
I'm just assuming that properties with higher rateable values correlate with households with more occupants which correlates with higher water usage. So if the number of occupants matches the size of the house (as mine does*) then what help is the rateable value unless the property band was (back in the dim and distant) incorrectly applied?
*Edit: I pointed out down-thread that we are about to have a child go off to university so that would leave us with a larger house than is needed for three persons. So if I was to go on a meter (and you guys are persuading me in that direction) then now would be the time to do it.
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
Substitution.
The price of a pair of clippers is £11.99 on Amazon - less than a haircut - and a lot of us got pretty used to them during lockdown.
Ditto beer. If the price of a pint in the pub is £14, and the price of four cans round a mate's house is a fiver... you can see how quickly businesses are going to fold.
Those of us brought up in the 70s remember bowl-cuts. Have a heart!
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
Interestingly, the two countries names mean quite different things of a similar nature. 'Australia' means 'southern continent', while 'Austria' is an Anglicisation of 'Osterreich' (sp?), meaning 'Eastern Empire'. Both of which are interesting, because it is much more common for a given country to view itself as the middle of things (cf China) - though understandable why in each case.
It wasn't so obvious to me why Österreich is so-called, so I looked it up on Wikipedia:
"The German name for Austria, Österreich, derives from the Old High German Ostarrîchi, which meant "eastern realm" and which first appeared in the "Ostarrîchi document" of 996.[17][18] This word is probably a translation of Medieval Latin Marchia orientalis into a local (Bavarian) dialect.
Austria was a prefecture of Bavaria created in 976. The word "Austria" is a Latinisation of the German name and was first recorded in the 12th century.[19] At the time, the Danube basin of Austria (Upper and Lower Austria) was the easternmost extent of Bavaria."
Is it more common for a country to call itself something like "middle" (I can only think of Zhōngguó - China) than its direction from elsewhere? Other examples of this include Nippon, maybe Norge, and Timór Lorosa'e
Lots of countries seem to be named after the people that live(d) there. Some after individuals. Some are stuck with silly names given by colonists - is Venezuela really much like Venice, or New Zealand anything like Zeeland?
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
I like the story of Elephant and Castle being named after Le Dauphin Castille.
Supporting evidence for which I can find nowhere.
Isn't it something to do with La Infanta de Castile?
Didn't we just do this? I've always loved the fact that such a pedestrian spot in SE London has such an exotic name. It's not the same now they've demolished the shopping centre, though.
It was one of the worst places around central London. It may not be the same, it may be less distinctive but it is better and safer already, with more to come.
I never felt remotely unsafe in Elephant. It has lost a lot of its character, becoming part of that homogenised kind of feel you get everywhere they put up these new towers, like you could be anywhere in the world. I'm sure that most people like it and it's a good thing etc, but something has certainly been lost in the process.
Is the anti-nuclear war mural still up there ? That's my memory from when I stayed in a friend of a friend's house there in 2002 I think.
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
It's easier for them in terms of monitoring usage. It also encourages people to save water which makes their lives easier.
If you're not in a very full house, or washing the car with mains water every day, it will also be cheaper for you.
I would have said for an ordinary household a meter is a no-brainer. I've had one for the last 16 years through four addresses and it's saved me a fortune.
Obvs we must have plenty of water in Scotland - we have to pay for the things to be installed. £135-ish for the survey and several hundred to a K for installation. We'd need to stay for years, decades even, for it to be financially worthwhile. But then I can't remember there ver being any hosepipe ban here, although there is (unusually) some limitation at present on river water abstraction by farmers in the neighbouring watershed I think.
The capacity of Loch Ness is 7.3 cubic km. The capacity of the largest lake in England, Kielder Water, is 0.2 cubic km. Or to put it another way, Loch Ness holds more than 36 times as much water as the largest source in England. Whether it's actually true it holds more water than every lake in England and Wales combined (as is often claimed) is unknowable as nobody has ever done a full measurement, but it's clearly enormous.
Of course, having that water is one thing, getting it to where it's needed is a different matter. But yes, you do have plenty of water in Scotland! Even Loch Lomond is eleven times as capacious as Kielder and somewhat more convenient for the large population centres.
On her first trip to London, I had to talk Mrs Sandpit out of wanting to go there. There’s no elephants, and definitely no castle.
Mrs DA is a cultural Anglophile but had never set foot in the UK before we were married due to visa shenanigans of the type with which you are painfully familiar.
She thought life in England was exactly as potrayed in Midsummer Murders except with less killing. Imagine her disenchantment when her first stop after emerging from Heathrow T5 was a Tesco in West Drayton.
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
I was sceptical at first, but to be honest it is the best thing I have done with water and it does have the effect of making you want to reduce water waste
It is not to do with them wanting you to pay less than now, but all to do with you paying for actual water usage and not based on your rateable value
I don't have any water waste. However, I can be tight as a knat's chuff at times and fear I would do things like not flush and shower less if I was on a meter!
I know my current bill is based on rateable value but can't see how this knowledge helps me calc which is best course of action. Surely higher rateable value properties correlate with higher water usage anyway??
We all have a degree of water waste especially those with combi gas boiler as the flow to the hot tap takes time to heat.
The number of people living in the home is key and generally speaking a 2 or 3 person household should switch to a water meter, especially if they have a high rateable value
I would suggest you try it and if it doesn't save you money ask to be returned to the rateable scheme
Party constitutions do not overrule the supremacy of parliament. The idea that a particular configuration of government, arising from the confidence of the HoC following an election, can be ruled out in advance is nonsense. It is meaningless and of course unenforceable.
Somebody should have told Starmer that when Brown poured the poison in his ear.
Does it matter, apart from showing Starmer is no Machiavelli? How would the SNP enter a coalition when it refuses to get involved in non-Scottish matters, thus ruling itself out of every Cabinet position bar one?
Unsurprisingly, the Westminster Bubble looks at this from a Labour point of view. Nobody every considers how the SNP views the situation. That the SNP would ever want to enter a coalition government in London is profoundly unlikely. So Starmer’s kite was all trappings and no substance. It was very clearly aimed at an English audience, not an Irish, Scottish or Welsh one.
The possibilities after the next election are various; and confused states more likely than usual. Absolutely everything everyone says about what is ruled in and ruled out has no meaning.
On that golden morning after the election, there is a country to run, a government to form, glittering prizes await and these can be snatched and snatched away by momentary actions or lapses. The newly elected House of Commons has not even met but is supreme. There are no ways of enforcing earlier pledges however solemn, when put up against 'the will of the people' and 'the sovereignty of the commons'.
This is all good, and PBers of all opinions will enjoy every minute of it, if there is a long scrum and the ball all over the place.
Cue the comments "But we didn't know xxx would sign up to yyy when I had to cast my vote".
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
Interestingly, the two countries names mean quite different things of a similar nature. 'Australia' means 'southern continent', while 'Austria' is an Anglicisation of 'Osterreich' (sp?), meaning 'Eastern Empire'. Both of which are interesting, because it is much more common for a given country to view itself as the middle of things (cf China) - though understandable why in each case.
It wasn't so obvious to me why Österreich is so-called, so I looked it up on Wikipedia:
"The German name for Austria, Österreich, derives from the Old High German Ostarrîchi, which meant "eastern realm" and which first appeared in the "Ostarrîchi document" of 996.[17][18] This word is probably a translation of Medieval Latin Marchia orientalis into a local (Bavarian) dialect.
Austria was a prefecture of Bavaria created in 976. The word "Austria" is a Latinisation of the German name and was first recorded in the 12th century.[19] At the time, the Danube basin of Austria (Upper and Lower Austria) was the easternmost extent of Bavaria."
Is it more common for a country to call itself something like "middle" (I can only think of Zhōngguó - China) than its direction from elsewhere? Other examples of this include Nippon, maybe Norge, and Timór Lorosa'e
Lots of countries seem to be named after the people that live(d) there. Some after individuals. Some are stuck with silly names given by colonists - is Venezuela really much like Venice, or New Zealand anything like Zeeland?
It’s a bit odd how England ended up being named after the Angles when it was the Saxons who united the country.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
Interestingly, the two countries names mean quite different things of a similar nature. 'Australia' means 'southern continent', while 'Austria' is an Anglicisation of 'Osterreich' (sp?), meaning 'Eastern Empire'. Both of which are interesting, because it is much more common for a given country to view itself as the middle of things (cf China) - though understandable why in each case.
It wasn't so obvious to me why Österreich is so-called, so I looked it up on Wikipedia:
"The German name for Austria, Österreich, derives from the Old High German Ostarrîchi, which meant "eastern realm" and which first appeared in the "Ostarrîchi document" of 996.[17][18] This word is probably a translation of Medieval Latin Marchia orientalis into a local (Bavarian) dialect.
Austria was a prefecture of Bavaria created in 976. The word "Austria" is a Latinisation of the German name and was first recorded in the 12th century.[19] At the time, the Danube basin of Austria (Upper and Lower Austria) was the easternmost extent of Bavaria."
Is it more common for a country to call itself something like "middle" (I can only think of Zhōngguó - China) than its direction from elsewhere? Other examples of this include Nippon, maybe Norge, and Timór Lorosa'e
Lots of countries seem to be named after the people that live(d) there. Some after individuals. Some are stuck with silly names given by colonists - is Venezuela really much like Venice, or New Zealand anything like Zeeland?
And Zhongguo is a bit more complex than that, too.
The phrase "zhong guo" came into common usage in the Warring States period (475–221 BCE), when it referred to the "Central States"; the states of the Yellow River Valley of the Zhou era, as distinguished from the tribal periphery.
Party constitutions do not overrule the supremacy of parliament. The idea that a particular configuration of government, arising from the confidence of the HoC following an election, can be ruled out in advance is nonsense. It is meaningless and of course unenforceable.
Somebody should have told Starmer that when Brown poured the poison in his ear.
Does it matter, apart from showing Starmer is no Machiavelli? How would the SNP enter a coalition when it refuses to get involved in non-Scottish matters, thus ruling itself out of every Cabinet position bar one?
Unsurprisingly, the Westminster Bubble looks at this from a Labour point of view. Nobody every considers how the SNP views the situation. That the SNP would ever want to enter a coalition government in London is profoundly unlikely. So Starmer’s kite was all trappings and no substance. It was very clearly aimed at an English audience, not an Irish, Scottish or Welsh one.
The possibilities after the next election are various; and confused states more likely than usual. Absolutely everything everyone says about what is ruled in and ruled out has no meaning.
On that golden morning after the election, there is a country to run, a government to form, glittering prizes await and these can be snatched and snatched away by momentary actions or lapses. The newly elected House of Commons has not even met but is supreme. There are no ways of enforcing earlier pledges however solemn, when put up against 'the will of the people' and 'the sovereignty of the commons'.
This is all good, and PBers of all opinions will enjoy every minute of it, if there is a long scrum and the ball all over the place.
Cue the comments "But we didn't know xxx would sign up to yyy when I had to cast my vote".
We didnt know SKS would rip up his 10 pledges within weeks.
Except of course CHB says he knew and thinks being a liar is a good thing in SKS's case
O/T NHS anecdote - I woke during the weekend with extreme vertigo and sickness. After an hour or so I was able to reach my phone and called 999. The ambulance was reasonably quick (about half an hour) and gave me lots of thorough tests - EEG, BP, testing eye movements, etc. - and got on to an emergency GP who prescribed some pills promptly, and the symptoms have eased off. This morning, had a satisfactory phone consultation with my regular GP, who basically said it'll clear up in a week or two but they'll do the Epley maneouvre (a new one on me) in a week if it hasn't.
All pretty good. On the other hand, the ambulance crew advised against going to A&E - "You'll have a 10-hour wait, then they'll give you the same tests we just gave you, then they'll send you home." They said ambulance demand oscillated and wasn't too bad at the moment in this area, but A&E was a disaster.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
Interestingly, the two countries names mean quite different things of a similar nature. 'Australia' means 'southern continent', while 'Austria' is an Anglicisation of 'Osterreich' (sp?), meaning 'Eastern Empire'. Both of which are interesting, because it is much more common for a given country to view itself as the middle of things (cf China) - though understandable why in each case.
It wasn't so obvious to me why Österreich is so-called, so I looked it up on Wikipedia:
"The German name for Austria, Österreich, derives from the Old High German Ostarrîchi, which meant "eastern realm" and which first appeared in the "Ostarrîchi document" of 996.[17][18] This word is probably a translation of Medieval Latin Marchia orientalis into a local (Bavarian) dialect.
Austria was a prefecture of Bavaria created in 976. The word "Austria" is a Latinisation of the German name and was first recorded in the 12th century.[19] At the time, the Danube basin of Austria (Upper and Lower Austria) was the easternmost extent of Bavaria."
Is it more common for a country to call itself something like "middle" (I can only think of Zhōngguó - China) than its direction from elsewhere? Other examples of this include Nippon, maybe Norge, and Timór Lorosa'e
Lots of countries seem to be named after the people that live(d) there. Some after individuals. Some are stuck with silly names given by colonists - is Venezuela really much like Venice, or New Zealand anything like Zeeland?
It’s a bit odd how England ended up being named after the Angles when it was the Saxons who united the country.
Western Saxony anyone?
Of course in Gaelic they are still called Saxons.
And Welsh ('Saeson') and Irish Gaelic ('Sasanech').
That’s awfully harsh. Yes, they went down to a rugby score last weekend, but they only just came up and had some horrible fixtures at the start of their season.
Doesn't sound like much of a rugby match. Just three penatlies.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
Interestingly, the two countries names mean quite different things of a similar nature. 'Australia' means 'southern continent', while 'Austria' is an Anglicisation of 'Osterreich' (sp?), meaning 'Eastern Empire'. Both of which are interesting, because it is much more common for a given country to view itself as the middle of things (cf China) - though understandable why in each case.
It wasn't so obvious to me why Österreich is so-called, so I looked it up on Wikipedia:
"The German name for Austria, Österreich, derives from the Old High German Ostarrîchi, which meant "eastern realm" and which first appeared in the "Ostarrîchi document" of 996.[17][18] This word is probably a translation of Medieval Latin Marchia orientalis into a local (Bavarian) dialect.
Austria was a prefecture of Bavaria created in 976. The word "Austria" is a Latinisation of the German name and was first recorded in the 12th century.[19] At the time, the Danube basin of Austria (Upper and Lower Austria) was the easternmost extent of Bavaria."
Is it more common for a country to call itself something like "middle" (I can only think of Zhōngguó - China) than its direction from elsewhere? Other examples of this include Nippon, maybe Norge, and Timór Lorosa'e
Lots of countries seem to be named after the people that live(d) there. Some after individuals. Some are stuck with silly names given by colonists - is Venezuela really much like Venice, or New Zealand anything like Zeeland?
It’s a bit odd how England ended up being named after the Angles when it was the Saxons who united the country.
Western Saxony anyone?
Of course in Gaelic they are still called Saxons.
"Horrible Histories" refers to them all as Saxons, which I think is definitive.
Party constitutions do not overrule the supremacy of parliament. The idea that a particular configuration of government, arising from the confidence of the HoC following an election, can be ruled out in advance is nonsense. It is meaningless and of course unenforceable.
Somebody should have told Starmer that when Brown poured the poison in his ear.
Does it matter, apart from showing Starmer is no Machiavelli? How would the SNP enter a coalition when it refuses to get involved in non-Scottish matters, thus ruling itself out of every Cabinet position bar one?
Unsurprisingly, the Westminster Bubble looks at this from a Labour point of view. Nobody every considers how the SNP views the situation. That the SNP would ever want to enter a coalition government in London is profoundly unlikely. So Starmer’s kite was all trappings and no substance. It was very clearly aimed at an English audience, not an Irish, Scottish or Welsh one.
The possibilities after the next election are various; and confused states more likely than usual. Absolutely everything everyone says about what is ruled in and ruled out has no meaning.
On that golden morning after the election, there is a country to run, a government to form, glittering prizes await and these can be snatched and snatched away by momentary actions or lapses. The newly elected House of Commons has not even met but is supreme. There are no ways of enforcing earlier pledges however solemn, when put up against 'the will of the people' and 'the sovereignty of the commons'.
This is all good, and PBers of all opinions will enjoy every minute of it, if there is a long scrum and the ball all over the place.
Cue the comments "But we didn't know xxx would sign up to yyy when I had to cast my vote".
We didnt know SKS would rip up his 10 pledges within weeks.
Except of course CHB says he knew and thinks being a liar is a good thing in SKS's case
Specifically lying to hard left entryists who have almost all left the party now. If the membership think he's a liar they will get rid of him - you and I both know he would smash a confidence vote.
O/T NHS anecdote - I woke during the weekend with extreme vertigo and sickness. After an hour or so I was able to reach my phone and called 999. The ambulance was reasonably quick (about half an hour) and gave me lots of thorough tests - EEG, BP, testing eye movements, etc. - and got on to an emergency GP who prescribed some pills promptly, and the symptoms have eased off. This morning, had a satisfactory phone consultation with my regular GP, who basically said it'll clear up in a week or two but they'll do the Epley maneouvre (a new one on me) in a week if it hasn't.
All pretty good. On the other hand, the ambulance crew advised against going to A&E - "You'll have a 10-hour wait, then they'll give you the same tests we just gave you, then they'll send you home." They said ambulance demand oscillated and wasn't too bad at the moment in this area, but A&E was a disaster.
Sorry to hear you've been so ill. Hope you feel better soon and don't need to go near the disaster area A+E.
On her first trip to London, I had to talk Mrs Sandpit out of wanting to go there. There’s no elephants, and definitely no castle.
Mrs DA is a cultural Anglophile but had never set foot in the UK before we were married due to visa shenanigans of the type with which you are painfully familiar.
She thought life in England was exactly as potrayed in Midsummer Murders except with less killing. Imagine her disenchantment when her first stop after emerging from Heathrow T5 was a Tesco in West Drayton.
First time my wife landed in the UK was to Birmingham airport, a quick stop at a petrol station for a crappy sandwich, then on to 20 miles of roadworks on the M6…
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
No kurdish community in Sweden ?
Absolutely! I myself go to the only Kurdish barber within a reasonable distance. He’s super busy and costs just 250 SEK (£20). But good luck dragging our vain offspring there!
The bloody dog is even worse. He costs 650 SEK a pop. Every 5 weeks 😳
O/T NHS anecdote - I woke during the weekend with extreme vertigo and sickness. After an hour or so I was able to reach my phone and called 999. The ambulance was reasonably quick (about half an hour) and gave me lots of thorough tests - EEG, BP, testing eye movements, etc. - and got on to an emergency GP who prescribed some pills promptly, and the symptoms have eased off. This morning, had a satisfactory phone consultation with my regular GP, who basically said it'll clear up in a week or two but they'll do the Epley maneouvre (a new one on me) in a week if it hasn't.
All pretty good. On the other hand, the ambulance crew advised against going to A&E - "You'll have a 10-hour wait, then they'll give you the same tests we just gave you, then they'll send you home." They said ambulance demand oscillated and wasn't too bad at the moment in this area, but A&E was a disaster.
That doesn’t sound too good, hope you’re feeling better soon.
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
It's easier for them in terms of monitoring usage. It also encourages people to save water which makes their lives easier.
If you're not in a very full house, or washing the car with mains water every day, it will also be cheaper for you.
I would have said for an ordinary household a meter is a no-brainer. I've had one for the last 16 years through four addresses and it's saved me a fortune.
Obvs we must have plenty of water in Scotland - we have to pay for the things to be installed. £135-ish for the survey and several hundred to a K for installation. We'd need to stay for years, decades even, for it to be financially worthwhile. But then I can't remember there ver being any hosepipe ban here, although there is (unusually) some limitation at present on river water abstraction by farmers in the neighbouring watershed I think.
The capacity of Loch Ness is 7.3 cubic km. The capacity of the largest lake in England, Kielder Water, is 0.2 cubic km. Or to put it another way, Loch Ness holds more than 36 times as much water as the largest source in England. Whether it's actually true it holds more water than every lake in England and Wales combined (as is often claimed) is unknowable as nobody has ever done a full measurement, but it's clearly enormous.
Of course, having that water is one thing, getting it to where it's needed is a different matter. But yes, you do have plenty of water in Scotland! Even Loch Lomond is eleven times as capacious as Kielder and somewhat more convenient for the large population centres.
If Loch Ness was emptied and filled with LNG it could hold the UK's needs for 57 years.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
Interestingly, the two countries names mean quite different things of a similar nature. 'Australia' means 'southern continent', while 'Austria' is an Anglicisation of 'Osterreich' (sp?), meaning 'Eastern Empire'. Both of which are interesting, because it is much more common for a given country to view itself as the middle of things (cf China) - though understandable why in each case.
It wasn't so obvious to me why Österreich is so-called, so I looked it up on Wikipedia:
"The German name for Austria, Österreich, derives from the Old High German Ostarrîchi, which meant "eastern realm" and which first appeared in the "Ostarrîchi document" of 996.[17][18] This word is probably a translation of Medieval Latin Marchia orientalis into a local (Bavarian) dialect.
Austria was a prefecture of Bavaria created in 976. The word "Austria" is a Latinisation of the German name and was first recorded in the 12th century.[19] At the time, the Danube basin of Austria (Upper and Lower Austria) was the easternmost extent of Bavaria."
Is it more common for a country to call itself something like "middle" (I can only think of Zhōngguó - China) than its direction from elsewhere? Other examples of this include Nippon, maybe Norge, and Timór Lorosa'e
Lots of countries seem to be named after the people that live(d) there. Some after individuals. Some are stuck with silly names given by colonists - is Venezuela really much like Venice, or New Zealand anything like Zeeland?
Central African Republic.
Not sure that counts - surely named so because it is in the centre of Africa?
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
It's easier for them in terms of monitoring usage. It also encourages people to save water which makes their lives easier.
If you're not in a very full house, or washing the car with mains water every day, it will also be cheaper for you.
I would have said for an ordinary household a meter is a no-brainer. I've had one for the last 16 years through four addresses and it's saved me a fortune.
Obvs we must have plenty of water in Scotland - we have to pay for the things to be installed. £135-ish for the survey and several hundred to a K for installation. We'd need to stay for years, decades even, for it to be financially worthwhile. But then I can't remember there ver being any hosepipe ban here, although there is (unusually) some limitation at present on river water abstraction by farmers in the neighbouring watershed I think.
The capacity of Loch Ness is 7.3 cubic km. The capacity of the largest lake in England, Kielder Water, is 0.2 cubic km. Or to put it another way, Loch Ness holds more than 36 times as much water as the largest source in England. Whether it's actually true it holds more water than every lake in England and Wales combined (as is often claimed) is unknowable as nobody has ever done a full measurement, but it's clearly enormous.
Of course, having that water is one thing, getting it to where it's needed is a different matter. But yes, you do have plenty of water in Scotland! Even Loch Lomond is eleven times as capacious as Kielder and somewhat more convenient for the large population centres.
If Loch Ness was empties and filled with LNG it could hold the UK's needs for 57 years.
Be a bit of a bugger trying to sail a boat across it though.
A Liz Truss version of the Scott Parker interview.
Yeah, this budget was really crap and disappointing but what can you expect? Rishi, Govey and Hunt won't work for me, and Boris kicked out the rest of the talent ages ago. So I've been left with Kwasi, Redwood and Rees-Mogg to run the Treasury!! Can you believe it! Not to mention Suella at the Home Office, even I'm scared what she might come up with. Anyway off to the G7 next, then dealing with Ukraine.....hope things turnaround somehow.
Except not as coherent as that. And probably with a bit more "how dare you ask me that question?"
Which is why she was never going to do a set-piece interview unless she absolutely had to.
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
Substitution.
The price of a pair of clippers is £11.99 on Amazon - less than a haircut - and a lot of us got pretty used to them during lockdown.
Ditto beer. If the price of a pint in the pub is £14, and the price of four cans round a mate's house is a fiver... you can see how quickly businesses are going to fold.
Not if it's £40 for your mate to have his light and heating on.
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
It's easier for them in terms of monitoring usage. It also encourages people to save water which makes their lives easier.
If you're not in a very full house, or washing the car with mains water every day, it will also be cheaper for you.
I would have said for an ordinary household a meter is a no-brainer. I've had one for the last 16 years through four addresses and it's saved me a fortune.
Obvs we must have plenty of water in Scotland - we have to pay for the things to be installed. £135-ish for the survey and several hundred to a K for installation. We'd need to stay for years, decades even, for it to be financially worthwhile. But then I can't remember there ver being any hosepipe ban here, although there is (unusually) some limitation at present on river water abstraction by farmers in the neighbouring watershed I think.
The capacity of Loch Ness is 7.3 cubic km. The capacity of the largest lake in England, Kielder Water, is 0.2 cubic km. Or to put it another way, Loch Ness holds more than 36 times as much water as the largest source in England. Whether it's actually true it holds more water than every lake in England and Wales combined (as is often claimed) is unknowable as nobody has ever done a full measurement, but it's clearly enormous.
Of course, having that water is one thing, getting it to where it's needed is a different matter. But yes, you do have plenty of water in Scotland! Even Loch Lomond is eleven times as capacious as Kielder and somewhat more convenient for the large population centres.
If Loch Ness was emptied and filled with LNG it could hold the UK's needs for 57 years.
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
It's easier for them in terms of monitoring usage. It also encourages people to save water which makes their lives easier.
If you're not in a very full house, or washing the car with mains water every day, it will also be cheaper for you.
I would have said for an ordinary household a meter is a no-brainer. I've had one for the last 16 years through four addresses and it's saved me a fortune.
Obvs we must have plenty of water in Scotland - we have to pay for the things to be installed. £135-ish for the survey and several hundred to a K for installation. We'd need to stay for years, decades even, for it to be financially worthwhile. But then I can't remember there ver being any hosepipe ban here, although there is (unusually) some limitation at present on river water abstraction by farmers in the neighbouring watershed I think.
The capacity of Loch Ness is 7.3 cubic km. The capacity of the largest lake in England, Kielder Water, is 0.2 cubic km. Or to put it another way, Loch Ness holds more than 36 times as much water as the largest source in England. Whether it's actually true it holds more water than every lake in England and Wales combined (as is often claimed) is unknowable as nobody has ever done a full measurement, but it's clearly enormous.
Of course, having that water is one thing, getting it to where it's needed is a different matter. But yes, you do have plenty of water in Scotland! Even Loch Lomond is eleven times as capacious as Kielder and somewhat more convenient for the large population centres.
If Loch Ness was emptied and filled with LNG it could hold the UK's needs for 57 years.
57 years would be the length of the planning enquiry, and the conservationists looking for a particular endangered species…
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
Interestingly, the two countries names mean quite different things of a similar nature. 'Australia' means 'southern continent', while 'Austria' is an Anglicisation of 'Osterreich' (sp?), meaning 'Eastern Empire'. Both of which are interesting, because it is much more common for a given country to view itself as the middle of things (cf China) - though understandable why in each case.
It wasn't so obvious to me why Österreich is so-called, so I looked it up on Wikipedia:
"The German name for Austria, Österreich, derives from the Old High German Ostarrîchi, which meant "eastern realm" and which first appeared in the "Ostarrîchi document" of 996.[17][18] This word is probably a translation of Medieval Latin Marchia orientalis into a local (Bavarian) dialect.
Austria was a prefecture of Bavaria created in 976. The word "Austria" is a Latinisation of the German name and was first recorded in the 12th century.[19] At the time, the Danube basin of Austria (Upper and Lower Austria) was the easternmost extent of Bavaria."
Is it more common for a country to call itself something like "middle" (I can only think of Zhōngguó - China) than its direction from elsewhere? Other examples of this include Nippon, maybe Norge, and Timór Lorosa'e
Lots of countries seem to be named after the people that live(d) there. Some after individuals. Some are stuck with silly names given by colonists - is Venezuela really much like Venice, or New Zealand anything like Zeeland?
It’s a bit odd how England ended up being named after the Angles when it was the Saxons who united the country.
Western Saxony anyone?
Of course in Gaelic they are still called Saxons.
"Horrible Histories" refers to them all as Saxons, which I think is definitive.
Not just any Saxons: savage Saxons.
Mind you, they refer to the Picts as 'cut throat Celts.'
Water meters help the market - people pay for what they use, so have the right incentives.
Yes but water mostly comes out of the sky for free. It is not as if the water company has to pray extra hard if someone has a bath instead of a shower. Surely their costs are pretty much fixed and not related to usage, at least till we move to relying on desalination plants.
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
It's easier for them in terms of monitoring usage. It also encourages people to save water which makes their lives easier.
If you're not in a very full house, or washing the car with mains water every day, it will also be cheaper for you.
I would have said for an ordinary household a meter is a no-brainer. I've had one for the last 16 years through four addresses and it's saved me a fortune.
Obvs we must have plenty of water in Scotland - we have to pay for the things to be installed. £135-ish for the survey and several hundred to a K for installation. We'd need to stay for years, decades even, for it to be financially worthwhile. But then I can't remember there ver being any hosepipe ban here, although there is (unusually) some limitation at present on river water abstraction by farmers in the neighbouring watershed I think.
The capacity of Loch Ness is 7.3 cubic km. The capacity of the largest lake in England, Kielder Water, is 0.2 cubic km. Or to put it another way, Loch Ness holds more than 36 times as much water as the largest source in England. Whether it's actually true it holds more water than every lake in England and Wales combined (as is often claimed) is unknowable as nobody has ever done a full measurement, but it's clearly enormous.
Of course, having that water is one thing, getting it to where it's needed is a different matter. But yes, you do have plenty of water in Scotland! Even Loch Lomond is eleven times as capacious as Kielder and somewhat more convenient for the large population centres.
If Loch Ness was emptied and filled with LNG it could hold the UK's needs for 57 years.
57 years would be the length of the planning enquiry, and the conservationists looking for a particular endangered species…
How about Conservative voters? They're getting very rare in Scotland and most of them are probably retirees who live in the Highlands these days.
Party constitutions do not overrule the supremacy of parliament. The idea that a particular configuration of government, arising from the confidence of the HoC following an election, can be ruled out in advance is nonsense. It is meaningless and of course unenforceable.
Somebody should have told Starmer that when Brown poured the poison in his ear.
Does it matter, apart from showing Starmer is no Machiavelli? How would the SNP enter a coalition when it refuses to get involved in non-Scottish matters, thus ruling itself out of every Cabinet position bar one?
Unsurprisingly, the Westminster Bubble looks at this from a Labour point of view. Nobody every considers how the SNP views the situation. That the SNP would ever want to enter a coalition government in London is profoundly unlikely. So Starmer’s kite was all trappings and no substance. It was very clearly aimed at an English audience, not an Irish, Scottish or Welsh one.
The possibilities after the next election are various; and confused states more likely than usual. Absolutely everything everyone says about what is ruled in and ruled out has no meaning.
On that golden morning after the election, there is a country to run, a government to form, glittering prizes await and these can be snatched and snatched away by momentary actions or lapses. The newly elected House of Commons has not even met but is supreme. There are no ways of enforcing earlier pledges however solemn, when put up against 'the will of the people' and 'the sovereignty of the commons'.
This is all good, and PBers of all opinions will enjoy every minute of it, if there is a long scrum and the ball all over the place.
O/T NHS anecdote - I woke during the weekend with extreme vertigo and sickness. After an hour or so I was able to reach my phone and called 999. The ambulance was reasonably quick (about half an hour) and gave me lots of thorough tests - EEG, BP, testing eye movements, etc. - and got on to an emergency GP who prescribed some pills promptly, and the symptoms have eased off. This morning, had a satisfactory phone consultation with my regular GP, who basically said it'll clear up in a week or two but they'll do the Epley maneouvre (a new one on me) in a week if it hasn't.
All pretty good. On the other hand, the ambulance crew advised against going to A&E - "You'll have a 10-hour wait, then they'll give you the same tests we just gave you, then they'll send you home." They said ambulance demand oscillated and wasn't too bad at the moment in this area, but A&E was a disaster.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.
In Australia many place names are named after aboriginal words or phrases for that area. I recall a story about one town where the settlers asked the aborigines for the name and the aborigines took the piss out of them and gave a rude phrase which what then adopted as the town's name by the European settlers not realising what they were calling themselves.
Unfortunately I can't remember the town, or what it allegedly meant, and it's possibly apocryphal but it's a fun story.
The classic in Sydney is a central suburb called Wooloomooloo, which is obviously an Aboriginal name. People going over from England try to pronounce it as "Woo-loo-moo-loo". The Aussies love that and the ensuing hilarity ensures that said English person never pronounces it wrong again. It sounds like "wuh-luh-muh-loo".
Torpenhow Hill says hello!
excellent both for the pronun and for meaning hill hill hill hill.
O/T NHS anecdote - I woke during the weekend with extreme vertigo and sickness. After an hour or so I was able to reach my phone and called 999. The ambulance was reasonably quick (about half an hour) and gave me lots of thorough tests - EEG, BP, testing eye movements, etc. - and got on to an emergency GP who prescribed some pills promptly, and the symptoms have eased off. This morning, had a satisfactory phone consultation with my regular GP, who basically said it'll clear up in a week or two but they'll do the Epley maneouvre (a new one on me) in a week if it hasn't.
All pretty good. On the other hand, the ambulance crew advised against going to A&E - "You'll have a 10-hour wait, then they'll give you the same tests we just gave you, then they'll send you home." They said ambulance demand oscillated and wasn't too bad at the moment in this area, but A&E was a disaster.
Good to hear you had a satisfactory conclusion but take care
My wife had a routine blood test at the surgery 10 days ago and mentioned she was a bit short of breath. (She has just recovered from a nasty bout of covid)
To be fair the practice nurse did an immediate ECG on her and phoned later in the day to say that it seemed ok but when the blood test results come in they may seek further tests
Looks as if my wife is OK as the surgery has not sought more blood tests but impressed with the action of the nurse
Water meters help the market - people pay for what they use, so have the right incentives.
Yes but water mostly comes out of the sky for free. It is not as if the water company has to pray extra hard if someone has a bath instead of a shower. Surely their costs are pretty much fixed and not related to usage, at least till we move to relying on desalination plants.
I'd have thought treatment of water to make it suitable for drinking (& sewage treatment) would be very much related to volume ?
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
I like the story of Elephant and Castle being named after Le Dauphin Castille.
Supporting evidence for which I can find nowhere.
Isn't it something to do with La Infanta de Castile?
Didn't we just do this? I've always loved the fact that such a pedestrian spot in SE London has such an exotic name. It's not the same now they've demolished the shopping centre, though.
It was one of the worst places around central London. It may not be the same, it may be less distinctive but it is better and safer already, with more to come.
I never felt remotely unsafe in Elephant. It has lost a lot of its character, becoming part of that homogenised kind of feel you get everywhere they put up these new towers, like you could be anywhere in the world. I'm sure that most people like it and it's a good thing etc, but something has certainly been lost in the process.
Is the anti-nuclear war mural still up there ? That's my memory from when I stayed in a friend of a friend's house there in 2002 I think.
I've never seen that, so perhaps not? I can't claim to have explored the area in detail, though. Last time I was there was a few weeks ago, in between night buses.
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
No kurdish community in Sweden ?
Absolutely! I myself go to the only Kurdish barber within a reasonable distance. He’s super busy and costs just 250 SEK (£20). But good luck dragging our vain offspring there!
The bloody dog is even worse. He costs 650 SEK a pop. Every 5 weeks 😳
£20 for a men's haircut is a 'just' in Sweden?! Haircuts here crept above £10 just before lockdown - which was a factor in my deciding I should probably carry on cutting my own.
A general question: why are so many barbers Middle Eastern? You would have thought it would necessarily be a universal skill. But I reckon if you go to any barber at random in South Manchester you have at least a 50/50 chance of having your haircut by someone Middle Eastern.
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
It's easier for them in terms of monitoring usage. It also encourages people to save water which makes their lives easier.
If you're not in a very full house, or washing the car with mains water every day, it will also be cheaper for you.
I would have said for an ordinary household a meter is a no-brainer. I've had one for the last 16 years through four addresses and it's saved me a fortune.
Obvs we must have plenty of water in Scotland - we have to pay for the things to be installed. £135-ish for the survey and several hundred to a K for installation. We'd need to stay for years, decades even, for it to be financially worthwhile. But then I can't remember there ver being any hosepipe ban here, although there is (unusually) some limitation at present on river water abstraction by farmers in the neighbouring watershed I think.
The Ukrainian Air Force has released video showing for the first time ever US-supplied AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles being fired from their MiG-29 jets.
Reportedly, very effective. Ukraine doesn't have many Mig29s, but the US has a crap-tonne* of HARMs.
*technical term for a large number whose precise details I'm in ignorance.
Hmm, I'm still working in shitloads, I'm afraid This crap-tonne is some new metric thing, I take it, given the 'ne' at the end?
That must have been a great electronics "hack" to make that work - even in the most basic "HARM like Sidearm" mode.
Reminds me of the stories about getting Shrike onto Vulcans for the Falkland war. Or the chap who improvised a ground launcher for Exocet for the Argentinians....
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
It's easier for them in terms of monitoring usage. It also encourages people to save water which makes their lives easier.
If you're not in a very full house, or washing the car with mains water every day, it will also be cheaper for you.
I would have said for an ordinary household a meter is a no-brainer. I've had one for the last 16 years through four addresses and it's saved me a fortune.
Obvs we must have plenty of water in Scotland - we have to pay for the things to be installed. £135-ish for the survey and several hundred to a K for installation. We'd need to stay for years, decades even, for it to be financially worthwhile. But then I can't remember there ver being any hosepipe ban here, although there is (unusually) some limitation at present on river water abstraction by farmers in the neighbouring watershed I think.
The capacity of Loch Ness is 7.3 cubic km. The capacity of the largest lake in England, Kielder Water, is 0.2 cubic km. Or to put it another way, Loch Ness holds more than 36 times as much water as the largest source in England. Whether it's actually true it holds more water than every lake in England and Wales combined (as is often claimed) is unknowable as nobody has ever done a full measurement, but it's clearly enormous.
Of course, having that water is one thing, getting it to where it's needed is a different matter. But yes, you do have plenty of water in Scotland! Even Loch Lomond is eleven times as capacious as Kielder and somewhat more convenient for the large population centres.
If Loch Ness was empties and filled with LNG it could hold the UK's needs for 57 years.
Be a bit of a bugger trying to sail a boat across it though.
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
No kurdish community in Sweden ?
Absolutely! I myself go to the only Kurdish barber within a reasonable distance. He’s super busy and costs just 250 SEK (£20). But good luck dragging our vain offspring there!
The bloody dog is even worse. He costs 650 SEK a pop. Every 5 weeks 😳
£20 for a men's haircut is a 'just' in Sweden?! Haircuts here crept above £10 just before lockdown - which was a factor in my deciding I should probably carry on cutting my own.
A general question: why are so many barbers Middle Eastern? You would have thought it would necessarily be a universal skill. But I reckon if you go to any barber at random in South Manchester you have at least a 50/50 chance of having your haircut by someone Middle Eastern.
Watch, if you haven't, Eastern Promises 2007, David Cronenberg, Viggo Mortensen). The opening 5 min will make you reconsider the whole ME barber thing.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
I like the story of Elephant and Castle being named after Le Dauphin Castille.
Supporting evidence for which I can find nowhere.
Isn't it something to do with La Infanta de Castile?
Didn't we just do this? I've always loved the fact that such a pedestrian spot in SE London has such an exotic name. It's not the same now they've demolished the shopping centre, though.
It was one of the worst places around central London. It may not be the same, it may be less distinctive but it is better and safer already, with more to come.
I never felt remotely unsafe in Elephant. It has lost a lot of its character, becoming part of that homogenised kind of feel you get everywhere they put up these new towers, like you could be anywhere in the world. I'm sure that most people like it and it's a good thing etc, but something has certainly been lost in the process.
Is the anti-nuclear war mural still up there ? That's my memory from when I stayed in a friend of a friend's house there in 2002 I think.
I've never seen that, so perhaps not? I can't claim to have explored the area in detail, though. Last time I was there was a few weeks ago, in between night buses.
Sorry seems I got my south London places mixed up - it's in Brixton. And has been restored
O/T NHS anecdote - I woke during the weekend with extreme vertigo and sickness. After an hour or so I was able to reach my phone and called 999. The ambulance was reasonably quick (about half an hour) and gave me lots of thorough tests - EEG, BP, testing eye movements, etc. - and got on to an emergency GP who prescribed some pills promptly, and the symptoms have eased off. This morning, had a satisfactory phone consultation with my regular GP, who basically said it'll clear up in a week or two but they'll do the Epley maneouvre (a new one on me) in a week if it hasn't.
All pretty good. On the other hand, the ambulance crew advised against going to A&E - "You'll have a 10-hour wait, then they'll give you the same tests we just gave you, then they'll send you home." They said ambulance demand oscillated and wasn't too bad at the moment in this area, but A&E was a disaster.
Good to hear you had a satisfactory conclusion but take care
My wife had a routine blood test at the surgery 10 days ago and mentioned she was a bit short of breath. (She has just recovered from a nasty bout of covid)
To be fair the practice nurse did an immediate ECG on her and phoned later in the day to say that it seemed ok but when the blood test results come in they may seek further tests
Looks as if my wife is OK as the surgery has not sought more blood tests but impressed with the action of the nurse
My experience is that if you actually get in to see somebody then then all is well. It's actually getting to see somebody that is a difficulty. Glad to see that NP is recovering; nasty experience.
A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.
No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.
Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.
What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.
The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?
All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.
Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.
I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.
It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.
Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.
Like the concept if it can be done properly.
I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.
These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.
That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.
Good morning
Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line
I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2
We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill
I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?
Because it's irreversible other than that, so it's a rare example of long term planning by them.
I'm very glad our water bill is unmetered. Running the kids baths alone would consume a lot of water that would take us past the bill we pay.
An elderly couple who take showers will consume a lot less water than a family will with young kids etc. If grandparents switch to get a better deal on a meter then the water company gets its reward from that if the next occupiers of the home are a family paying considerably more extra than what the grandparents had saved.
Have you actually done the numbers Bart? I hear what you are saying, but in our previous house we would have been in the same situation as you (2 youngsters from babies) and it was still cheaper to be metered. It does seem to be biased to get you on the meter.
Turning the question round, what's in it for the water company? They have to pay to install and maintain water meters where there were none before, so what do they get out of it?
Good question. In addition to data to optimise pricing and planning I assume they are financially encouraged to do so by the Govt. But I don't know that.
They are expected to increase metering take up by the regulator. There is a possibility that they may be given a financial incentive (either positive for doing it or negative for low take-up rates).
When chatting to TW on this, they said that even with net neutral rates, on average, people decreased water usage by 12% simply by being aware of how much they were using and for what they were using it. And the leakage pinpointing was another one - it makes their lives easier.
Water meters help the market - people pay for what they use, so have the right incentives.
Yes but water mostly comes out of the sky for free. It is not as if the water company has to pray extra hard if someone has a bath instead of a shower. Surely their costs are pretty much fixed and not related to usage, at least till we move to relying on desalination plants.
They have to get the water from where it arrives to where it is needed. Pumping and piping and maintaining the network to do that is not free.
They also do not have limitless water available and the regulator wants them to reduce usage, wastage, and leakage.
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
Substitution.
The price of a pair of clippers is £11.99 on Amazon - less than a haircut - and a lot of us got pretty used to them during lockdown.
Ditto beer. If the price of a pint in the pub is £14, and the price of four cans round a mate's house is a fiver... you can see how quickly businesses are going to fold.
Those of us brought up in the 70s remember bowl-cuts. Have a heart!
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.
Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?
Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.
My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.
No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.
In Australia many place names are named after aboriginal words or phrases for that area. I recall a story about one town where the settlers asked the aborigines for the name and the aborigines took the piss out of them and gave a rude phrase which what then adopted as the town's name by the European settlers not realising what they were calling themselves.
Unfortunately I can't remember the town, or what it allegedly meant, and it's possibly apocryphal but it's a fun story.
The classic in Sydney is a central suburb called Wooloomooloo, which is obviously an Aboriginal name. People going over from England try to pronounce it as "Woo-loo-moo-loo". The Aussies love that and the ensuing hilarity ensures that said English person never pronounces it wrong again. It sounds like "wuh-luh-muh-loo".
Though don't Aussies visiting Leicestershire refer to a certain town as Loo-oog-a-bor-oog-a ?
John Hudson @John_Hudson Scoop: Ukraine has developed a fleet of wooden decoys resembling U.S. rocket systems that have tricked Russian forces into wasting expensive long-range cruise missiles on dummy targets, per sources and photographs of the replicas reviewed by The Post.
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
Substitution.
The price of a pair of clippers is £11.99 on Amazon - less than a haircut - and a lot of us got pretty used to them during lockdown.
Ditto beer. If the price of a pint in the pub is £14, and the price of four cans round a mate's house is a fiver... you can see how quickly businesses are going to fold.
Those of us brought up in the 70s remember bowl-cuts. Have a heart!
Those of us brought up in the 70s remember hair!
Fortunately, I have inherited my mother’s genes in that respect. Apparently my dad was bald as a coot already in his early twenties. I still have a fine head of hair, which grows at a preposterously fast rate and gets annoyingly curly, so I’m forever down at the bloody barber shop.
I was looking at our family expenditure on haircuts over the last 12 months recently. We spent well over £2000, if you include the dog.
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
Substitution.
The price of a pair of clippers is £11.99 on Amazon - less than a haircut - and a lot of us got pretty used to them during lockdown.
Ditto beer. If the price of a pint in the pub is £14, and the price of four cans round a mate's house is a fiver... you can see how quickly businesses are going to fold.
Those of us brought up in the 70s remember bowl-cuts. Have a heart!
John Hudson @John_Hudson Scoop: Ukraine has developed a fleet of wooden decoys resembling U.S. rocket systems that have tricked Russian forces into wasting expensive long-range cruise missiles on dummy targets, per sources and photographs of the replicas reviewed by The Post.
Pubs will be far from the only small businesses facing closure this winter.
Pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, hairdressers, nurseries (both for children and plants), lots of retail, cinemas, theatres etc. Unless they are on fixed rate contracts how can they possibly afford or pass onto customers the sorts of increases being asked - 250% or more? And what about the knock on effects on their customers and their staff if they drastically reduce their opening hours etc?
What about hospitals and schools? And so on.
As suppliers drop out of the market, survivors will be free to increase prices unhindered. Another inflation input.
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
Substitution.
The price of a pair of clippers is £11.99 on Amazon - less than a haircut - and a lot of us got pretty used to them during lockdown.
Ditto beer. If the price of a pint in the pub is £14, and the price of four cans round a mate's house is a fiver... you can see how quickly businesses are going to fold.
Those of us brought up in the 70s remember bowl-cuts. Have a heart!
Those of us brought up in the 70s remember hair!
Fortunately, I have inherited my mother’s genes in that respect. Apparently my dad was bald as a coot already in his early twenties. I still have a fine head of hair, which grows at a preposterously fast rate and gets annoyingly curly, so I’m forever down at the bloody barber shop.
I was looking at our family expenditure on haircuts over the last 12 months recently. We spent well over £2000, if you include the dog.
How much were those Amazon clippers again?
Gotd this thing. Which recommended it. Variable length, useful for beard as well as head.
Comments
But it is a risk in changing your demographic.
*consecutively, not concurrently, we can only afford one property at a time
**which is bollox as our adjoining neighbours have one under the sink fitted some years before we moved in - I guess it does mean it can't be fitted in the street as normal for houses as there's only one pipe coming off to serve 8 properties
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11152659/PETER-HITCHENS-long-war-Ukraine-bring-death-poverty-ruin.html
The price for a child haircut around here is 450 SEK (£36). Coming to a hairdresser near you?
Edit: and see that chap I quoted earlier this morning - he was concerned about the SDLP, also 'nationalist' so now not permissible allies.
The price of a pair of clippers is £11.99 on Amazon - less than a haircut - and a lot of us got pretty used to them during lockdown.
Ditto beer. If the price of a pint in the pub is £14, and the price of four cans round a mate's house is a fiver... you can see how quickly businesses are going to fold.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/29/leading-tories-call-on-new-pm-to-tackle-crisis-facing-schools-over-soaring-costs
We should make appeasement a crime.
50 years in prison or exile to Russia.
I know my current bill is based on rateable value but can't see how this knowledge helps me calc which is best course of action. Surely higher rateable value properties correlate with higher water usage anyway??
Yeah, this budget was really crap and disappointing but what can you expect? Rishi, Govey and Hunt won't work for me, and Boris kicked out the rest of the talent ages ago. So I've been left with Kwasi, Redwood and Rees-Mogg to run the Treasury!! Can you believe it! Not to mention Suella at the Home Office, even I'm scared what she might come up with. Anyway off to the G7 next, then dealing with Ukraine.....hope things turnaround somehow.
But yes, he's always been an utter bellend.
https://mobile.twitter.com/gurlep_epetur/status/1564496977127170048
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5peu3xD0W2o
Could be nervous Russians; Russians firing at drones, Ukrainian partisans or forward units of the Ukrainian army.
Or Leon's aliens just visiting?
The Red Tories become more Tory than Red with every passing week.
Uttoxeter is pronounced by some locals (including some of my family members) as Uttcheter.
On that golden morning after the election, there is a country to run, a government to form, glittering prizes await and these can be snatched and snatched away by momentary actions or lapses. The newly elected House of Commons has not even met but is supreme. There are no ways of enforcing earlier pledges however solemn, when put up against 'the will of the people' and 'the sovereignty of the commons'.
This is all good, and PBers of all opinions will enjoy every minute of it, if there is a long scrum and the ball all over the place.
In January the French government forced state-owned energy provider EDF to cap price rises at 4% for a year - could the same be done in the UK and does it mean the French are better off?
The measure has cost €8.4bn (£7bn) and will protect the majority of households from the huge energy bills hikes seen here in the UK.
The typical German or Italian household, for example, is currently paying more for their energy than the typical UK household. It is also worth bearing in mind that energy tariffs in the UK are traditionally lower than in continental Europe - it is just that UK households tend to consume more energy due to the UK's older, draughtier housing stock.
France is something of an outlier because the vast majority of its energy comes from nuclear - so it is less exposed to higher gas, oil or coal prices. France's nuclear fleet is also aging and half of it is offline at present - so France may in time end up paying more as it seeks alternative energy sources. France is also an outlier because President Emmanuel Macron has frozen energy prices. But that is going to come at a huge cost to the French state. He has just spent €12bn alone on buying the remaining 16% of EDF, the country's main electricity provider, that the government did not already own. He did this because this price freeze is going to be ruinously expensive for EDF. The cost of this support may only become clear over time.
Is nationalisation the answer?
France, as I say, is an outlier in that it is nationalising EDF, its main electricity provider, but that is mainly because that company (which has always been state-controlled) is a debt-laden basket case facing vast capital expenditure in the coming years because Mr Macron wants a vast roll-out of new nuclear power plants.
That kind of expenditure can only be back-stopped by French taxpayers. And note that France is not taking the same approach with its gas suppliers. Nor are comparable economies like Germany.
Could the UK cap prices at 4%?
We could - but the cost to the taxpayer (as it will be in France) would be immense. And why would you want to subsidise those households that can afford to pay more rather than try and target support at those in most need?
Surely higher rateable value properties correlate with higher water usage anyway??
No, why would it - water use correlates with size of household, not the size of house. Now I know house and household are generally correlated but a larger house won't use more water simply because it's larger. Neither frankly should it use particularly more electricity *unless it's electrically heated. Gas* is the only thing that correlates with house size.
There's also the fact to consider that while poor people in cheap houses drink water, rich people in big houses drink champagne (or at the very least, Perrier) so make a big saving on tap drinking water consumption
There’s a village somewhere missing its idiot, he’s about as in touch with the national mood as Mrs Sussex.
"The German name for Austria, Österreich, derives from the Old High German Ostarrîchi, which meant "eastern realm" and which first appeared in the "Ostarrîchi document" of 996.[17][18] This word is probably a translation of Medieval Latin Marchia orientalis into a local (Bavarian) dialect.
Austria was a prefecture of Bavaria created in 976. The word "Austria" is a Latinisation of the German name and was first recorded in the 12th century.[19] At the time, the Danube basin of Austria (Upper and Lower Austria) was the easternmost extent of Bavaria."
Is it more common for a country to call itself something like "middle" (I can only think of Zhōngguó - China) than its direction from elsewhere? Other examples of this include Nippon, maybe Norge, and Timór Lorosa'e
Lots of countries seem to be named after the people that live(d) there. Some after individuals. Some are stuck with silly names given by colonists - is Venezuela really much like Venice, or New Zealand anything like Zeeland?
Two tries and a drop goal.
*Edit: I pointed out down-thread that we are about to have a child go off to university so that would leave us with a larger house than is needed for three persons. So if I was to go on a meter (and you guys are persuading me in that direction) then now would be the time to do it.
Of course, having that water is one thing, getting it to where it's needed is a different matter. But yes, you do have plenty of water in Scotland! Even Loch Lomond is eleven times as capacious as Kielder and somewhat more convenient for the large population centres.
She thought life in England was exactly as potrayed in Midsummer Murders except with less killing. Imagine her disenchantment when her first stop after emerging from Heathrow T5 was a Tesco in West Drayton.
The number of people living in the home is key and generally speaking a 2 or 3 person household should switch to a water meter, especially if they have a high rateable value
I would suggest you try it and if it doesn't save you money ask to be returned to the rateable scheme
Western Saxony anyone?
Of course in Gaelic they are still called Saxons.
The phrase "zhong guo" came into common usage in the Warring States period (475–221 BCE), when it referred to the "Central States"; the states of the Yellow River Valley of the Zhou era, as distinguished from the tribal periphery.
From
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_China
Except of course CHB says he knew and thinks being a liar is a good thing in SKS's case
All pretty good. On the other hand, the ambulance crew advised against going to A&E - "You'll have a 10-hour wait, then they'll give you the same tests we just gave you, then they'll send you home." They said ambulance demand oscillated and wasn't too bad at the moment in this area, but A&E was a disaster.
the disaster areaA+E.The bloody dog is even worse. He costs 650 SEK a pop. Every 5 weeks 😳
Which is why she was never going to do a set-piece interview unless she absolutely had to.
What’s not to like?
Real men to become a trend?
Mind you, they refer to the Picts as 'cut throat Celts.'
My wife had a routine blood test at the surgery 10 days ago and mentioned she was a bit short of breath. (She has just recovered from a nasty bout of covid)
To be fair the practice nurse did an immediate ECG on her and phoned later in the day to say that it seemed ok but when the blood test results come in they may seek further tests
Looks as if my wife is OK as the surgery has not sought more blood tests but impressed with the action of the nurse
A general question: why are so many barbers Middle Eastern? You would have thought it would necessarily be a universal skill. But I reckon if you go to any barber at random in South Manchester you have at least a 50/50 chance of having your haircut by someone Middle Eastern.
Reminds me of the stories about getting Shrike onto Vulcans for the Falkland war. Or the chap who improvised a ground launcher for Exocet for the Argentinians....
https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/25062021-iconic-brixton-peace-mural-restored-to-former-glory
An important (and enormous !) piece of cold war art.
Glad to see that NP is recovering; nasty experience.
You wondered why I was still considering voting Borgerlig when they are in the pockets of the Sweden Democrats. The answer is, not all of them are.
There are 4 Borgerlig (“bourgeois”) parties:
Moderates and Christian Democrats are in bed with the Sweden Democrats = no thanks!
Liberals are equivocal = no thanks
But the Centre Party are 100% anti Sweden Democrat!
So, I’ll probably vote Centre (although have not yet totally ruled out the Greens or Social Democrats).
When chatting to TW on this, they said that even with net neutral rates, on average, people decreased water usage by 12% simply by being aware of how much they were using and for what they were using it.
And the leakage pinpointing was another one - it makes their lives easier.
They also do not have limitless water available and the regulator wants them to reduce usage, wastage, and leakage.
John Hudson
@John_Hudson
Scoop: Ukraine has developed a fleet of wooden decoys resembling U.S. rocket systems that have tricked Russian forces into wasting expensive long-range cruise missiles on dummy targets, per sources and photographs of the replicas reviewed by The Post.
https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1564494132910899200
I was looking at our family expenditure on haircuts over the last 12 months recently. We spent well over £2000, if you include the dog.
How much were those Amazon clippers again?
The Russians were very keen on them in the Cold War, IIRC.
https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07DTJ6F2Q/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1