Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Truss has managed to avoid a set piece interview throughout whole campaign – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,231

    LOL

    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

    That’s hillarious if it’s true.

    Leave a fake HIMARS out in the middle of a field, keep the real one well hidden except for a few minutes at night, wait for the multimillion-dollar enemy missile to blow up the fake one, rinse and repeat. :D
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,384

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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!
    Just not in our ears, nostrils and on our toes.
    Toes?! What are you, a hobbit??
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,299
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    eristdoof said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cicero said:

    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.
    Quite right, its clearly been invented by Michael Palin and has since gotten out of hand.
    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.
    It comes from the Laurentian kanata which means village or settlement
    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kanata#Laurentian

    Laurentian was the language of the St Lawrence Iroquoians
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_Iroquoians
    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

    https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/25062021-iconic-brixton-peace-mural-restored-to-former-glory

    An important (and enormous !) piece of cold war art.
    Ah, cool! I don't know that piece of art. But Brixton is a bit too far west for me, and surprisingly hard to get to from our spot in SE London.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Carnyx said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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.

    https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07DTJ6F2Q/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
    Aha! I’ve already got one of those. Been in a drawer for a few years since I abandoned my “rugged stubble chin” look.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Carnyx said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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!
    Just not in our ears, nostrils and on our toes.
    Toes?! What are you, a hobbit??
    Worse. A Pict.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,193
    Carnyx said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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.

    https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07DTJ6F2Q/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
    One of my instructors on AACC used to burn the hairs out of his nose with a lit match. Top grooming tip.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,822

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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?
    I would speculate that the high cost of haircutting is reflective of the high cost of labour in Sweden, due to pension costs, social security, high cost of living etc; I would guess there are other compulsory costs, licensing, insurance etc etc.
    I took a taxi for less than 2 miles in Stockholm a few weeks ago and it cost 330 KR. The meter was going up 1kr per second (about 8p), and this was mid afternoon on a weekday.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,384
    edited August 2022

    Carnyx said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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.

    https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07DTJ6F2Q/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
    Aha! I’ve already got one of those. Been in a drawer for a few years since I abandoned my “rugged stubble chin” look.
    May not need any more, depending how fussy you are. Mrs C cuts my head hair with it and a pair of long scissors, apart from the beard and eyebrows which I do easypeasy - just run at 4mm. I let the chest grow au naturel.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,219
    Bleak picture in education.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/30/campaigning-to-keep-the-lights-on-the-desperate-plight-of-englands-schools-and-universities

    Striking fact amongst many. Funding for free school meals to rise by 7p to £2.41. 3%.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,837

    eristdoof said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Labour deny plan to change party constitution to rule out coalitions with SNP

    Labour has poured cold water on claims the party’s constitution could be changed to rule out any formal coalitions with the SNP.

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/labour-deny-plan-to-change-party-constitution-to-rule-out-coalitions-with-snp-3822821

    Starmer = dud

    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
    It only needs 20% of Labour MPs to mount a leadership challenge, so the voters representatives in the HoC hold a huge power in their hands if they feel the urge to act in the national interest.



    "How do Labour MPs initiate a leadership challenge against the leader?
    There is only one way for Labour MPs to formally initiate a leadership challenge. A challenger (or challengers) must be nominated by at least 20% of the combined ranks of Labour MPs. Nominations must be submitted in written form to the general secretary of the party. This triggers a leadership contest.

    In these circumstances, a sitting leader is not required to seek nominations (they are on the ballot paper by default)."
    (IoG)


  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,384
    dixiedean said:

    Bleak picture in education.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/30/campaigning-to-keep-the-lights-on-the-desperate-plight-of-englands-schools-and-universities

    Striking fact amongst many. Funding for free school meals to rise by 7p to £2.41. 3%.

    Hmm, the school hamsters will be going hungry.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,384

    Carnyx said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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!
    Just not in our ears, nostrils and on our toes.
    Toes?! What are you, a hobbit??
    Worse. A Pict.
    *checks - on reflection I do have hairier toes than I used to. But I'm 25% pict anyway.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,352

    TOPPING said:

    eristdoof said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cicero said:

    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.
    Quite right, its clearly been invented by Michael Palin and has since gotten out of hand.
    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.
    It comes from the Laurentian kanata which means village or settlement
    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kanata#Laurentian

    Laurentian was the language of the St Lawrence Iroquoians
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_Iroquoians
    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 friend of mine moved to Elephant and Castle a year or so ago. I couldn't believe how hipster it had become - world-food courtyard restaurants etc.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,837
    dixiedean said:

    Bleak picture in education.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/30/campaigning-to-keep-the-lights-on-the-desperate-plight-of-englands-schools-and-universities

    Striking fact amongst many. Funding for free school meals to rise by 7p to £2.41. 3%.

    No shortage of bleak pictures. The shortage is of suggestions of dealing with it, without requiring our grandchildren to pop it on their already overloaded credit card.

    If we are so sure their wealth can pay for it, why are we so unsure that our's can?

  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,384
    edited August 2022

    kamski said:

    Cookie said:

    eristdoof said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cicero said:

    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.
    Quite right, its clearly been invented by Michael Palin and has since gotten out of hand.
    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.
    Not to mention the Brits who gave their name to Britain. That's basically you, TUD, a bit of me, YBarddCwsc, Ydoethur, and Leon for the Cornish Bit, as the first few 'British' PBers that I can think of. .
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535

    Selebian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting.

    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.

    They seem to be fired in pairs from the inboard pylons where R-27 AAM would otherwise be carried...

    https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1564539358451044353

    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 :disappointed: 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....
    Necessity mother of invention, etc.
    No doubt the Russians have similar tales (the repurposing of their AA missiles for civilian bombardment etc).

    This possibly accounts for the claims of destruction if HIMARS which were unfounded:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/30/ukraine-russia-himars-decoy-artillery/

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535

    LOL

    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

    There is a very kong history of using such decoys. Before WWI...

    The Russians were very keen on them in the Cold War, IIRC.
    Problem is even if you know about them, they're still somewhat effective.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,384

    Carnyx said:

    dixiedean said:

    Bleak picture in education.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/30/campaigning-to-keep-the-lights-on-the-desperate-plight-of-englands-schools-and-universities

    Striking fact amongst many. Funding for free school meals to rise by 7p to £2.41. 3%.

    Hmm, the school hamsters will be going hungry.
    The school hamsters will be getting eaten.
    Actually, that might be the only logical and ethical solution. Ditto goldfish and the locusts in the biology lab, though I'm not so sure what axolotl tastes like.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,068
    dixiedean said:

    Bleak picture in education.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/30/campaigning-to-keep-the-lights-on-the-desperate-plight-of-englands-schools-and-universities

    Striking fact amongst many. Funding for free school meals to rise by 7p to £2.41. 3%.

    I'd seperate out schools and universities here - schools are at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46180290

    £5,000 per child and £6,300 for secondary whereas it's 10 grand a year to go to University (Plus megabonus dollars from foreign students). So I don't think unis can cry poverty here.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,219

    Carnyx said:

    dixiedean said:

    Bleak picture in education.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/30/campaigning-to-keep-the-lights-on-the-desperate-plight-of-englands-schools-and-universities

    Striking fact amongst many. Funding for free school meals to rise by 7p to £2.41. 3%.

    Hmm, the school hamsters will be going hungry.
    The school hamsters will be getting eaten.
    Their pelts used for warmth.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,384
    dixiedean said:

    Carnyx said:

    dixiedean said:

    Bleak picture in education.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/30/campaigning-to-keep-the-lights-on-the-desperate-plight-of-englands-schools-and-universities

    Striking fact amongst many. Funding for free school meals to rise by 7p to £2.41. 3%.

    Hmm, the school hamsters will be going hungry.
    The school hamsters will be getting eaten.
    Their pelts used for warmth.
    Or shoes.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,068
    Nigelb said:

    Selebian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting.

    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.

    They seem to be fired in pairs from the inboard pylons where R-27 AAM would otherwise be carried...

    https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1564539358451044353

    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 :disappointed: 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....
    Necessity mother of invention, etc.
    No doubt the Russians have similar tales (the repurposing of their AA missiles for civilian bombardment etc).

    This possibly accounts for the claims of destruction if HIMARS which were unfounded:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/30/ukraine-russia-himars-decoy-artillery/

    I'd have thought "accidental" pictures uploaded with incorrect location data would be another treasure trove of decoy attacks.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    dixiedean said:

    Bleak picture in education.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/30/campaigning-to-keep-the-lights-on-the-desperate-plight-of-englands-schools-and-universities

    Striking fact amongst many. Funding for free school meals to rise by 7p to £2.41. 3%.

    This link paints an even bleaker picture in many ways:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/may/07/why-teachers-quit-i-have-friends-up-north-who-cant-afford-their-heating-bill

    I can empathise with much of that, but ultimately I realised the issue wasn't in the schools, it was in the higher management of them. Otherwise, I might have continued looking for a school where it wasn't a problem and kept getting frustrated. He hasn't made that leap yet, but equally, it looks like he doesn't have the financial cushion I do.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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.

    https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07DTJ6F2Q/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
    One of my instructors on AACC used to burn the hairs out of his nose with a lit match. Top grooming tip.
    African barbers do your ears with a glowing coal. Learned this in Addis Ababa. disconcerting if not forewarned.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,299

    TOPPING said:

    eristdoof said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cicero said:

    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.
    Quite right, its clearly been invented by Michael Palin and has since gotten out of hand.
    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.
    It comes from the Laurentian kanata which means village or settlement
    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kanata#Laurentian

    Laurentian was the language of the St Lawrence Iroquoians
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_Iroquoians
    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 friend of mine moved to Elephant and Castle a year or so ago. I couldn't believe how hipster it had become - world-food courtyard restaurants etc.
    It's that ersatz, corporate kind of hipsterism though, the kind that comes with big regeneration projects rather than arising organically as artists and creatives populate inexpensive run-down neighbourhoods (Peckham is the prime example currently). They never get it quite right, in my experience.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,943
    President Biden will deliver a prime-time speech from Philadelphia on Thursday about protecting democracy during which he will warn that Americans’ rights and freedoms are “under attack,” according to a White House official.

    The Hill
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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?
    I would speculate that the high cost of haircutting is reflective of the high cost of labour in Sweden, due to pension costs, social security, high cost of living etc; I would guess there are other compulsory costs, licensing, insurance etc etc.
    I took a taxi for less than 2 miles in Stockholm a few weeks ago and it cost 330 KR. The meter was going up 1kr per second (about 8p), and this was mid afternoon on a weekday.
    A taxi to the airport costs us about 900 SEK (£73) these days. Or rather, costs our employers. We only pay privately a few times a year.

    The advantage of sky-high prices for services is that when you are on holiday you feel incredibly wealthy. I go mad in Scotland on taxis, haircuts, shopping etc. Everything is so cheap.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    kjh said:

    Stocky said:

    eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    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.
    Yeah the "simple" logic is:

    No one is on a water metre, everyone pays the average usage price.
    Water meters are offered.
    People who work out they use low amounts of water go on the meter and pay less.
    Now the average usage increase for the remaining households as the low usage housholds are removed from the pool.
    More people would now save money by being on a meter so get them installed.
    Average usage for unmetered customers increases again
    Rinse and repeat.
    By now you would have to have absolutely massive water usage to be saving moeny not being on a meter.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Sandpit said:

    LOL

    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

    That’s hillarious if it’s true.

    Leave a fake HIMARS out in the middle of a field, keep the real one well hidden except for a few minutes at night, wait for the multimillion-dollar enemy missile to blow up the fake one, rinse and repeat. :D
    This is what Serbia did against NATO in the Kosovo war. America blew up a lot of decoys and hee haw Serbian military equipment.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,516
    Nigelb said:

    Stocky said:

    eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Rob Ford brings facts to a prejudice party - fascinating trio of threads sparked by the “Never kissed a Tory” t- shirt:

    In the second volume of @sexliesballots I had a look at voters' attitudes to marriage across party lines. 2010 Labour voters were much more likely to be upset at the idea of a close relative marrying a Conservative than 2010 Tories were of a potential Labour in-law.

    https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1564202925068623874

    Same phenomenon noted among Remain vs Leave voters.

    I would suggest that this is a result of the dominant media culrure being Labour/Remain.
    Remainers in deep Remainia might literally never knowingly encounter a Leaver or a Tory first hand. Potentially, their only exposure to them is via their chosen media, which will generally paint Leavers in a negative light.
    Whereas Leavers in deep Leavistan - even if they personally do not know any Remainers (or Labour voters) will, if they watch any telly at all, be exposed to Remainy/Labour/Centrist Dad views on Remain's own terms. They may not agree with them, but Remain/Labour types will not be the distant and scary stereotypes that Leave/Tory types will be for those in deep Remainia.
    Dominant media culture is Remain and Labour? You do know what the most popular newspapers in the UK are, right?
    She’s done a lot of newspaper work during the campaign.

    The criticism, from those who would criticise her no matter what she did, is the lack of TV interviews - where yes, the culture is very much Blairite and Remain.
    That's thecmost pathetic excuse I have ever heard. Thatcher thought the BBC was run by actual Marxists and it didn't stop her doing TV interviews.
    Right. If Truss does want to model herself as Thatcher, she's totally lacking in this aspect. Margaret Thatcher used to pop up quite often on normal news programs (Eg. Six O'Clock news) to answer questions from that day's news. I don't remember seeing any PM since doing that.
    It's what I like about Borgen - the lovely now-fictitious idea that the PM will rock up to any news programme and happily answer questions free-form with about an hour's notice. Nice for the narrative but not particularly realistic, well certainly not here in the UK.
    I loved the original Borgen - but was disappointed with the recent series. It seems a bit thin and odd to me.

    On the subject of TV - I'm mourning the loss of Better Call Saul.
    The last series is probably worth a binge rewatch.

    Can recommend the German 'Kleo' on Netflix.
    Amusing end of Cold War nostalgia trip; great soundtrack.
    I checked the trailer, quite a strong Killing Eve vibe which I have to say puts me off a bit. I'll definitely give a go though.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535

    President Biden will deliver a prime-time speech from Philadelphia on Thursday about protecting democracy during which he will warn that Americans’ rights and freedoms are “under attack,” according to a White House official.

    The Hill

    No, YOU'RE the fascist....
    https://mobile.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1564436961150091264

    Odd that they recognise he's talking about them.
  • Options
    DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 601

    Glad to see you about @NickPalmer . I answered a question you posed last week but suspect I was too late and you’d left the thread.

    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).

    Hi Stuart, it looks like from the newspapers that Andersson is trying to sweet talk the Liberals away from allying with the Sweden Democrats. Do you think there's a sincere effort to have a 5 party government even if she has a majority without the Liberals or a message to Liberal voters to say "look, your party has drifted massively and you might not have noticed.". On the other side of the question, how are the Liberals reacting to the claim they are getting into bed with 'fascists'?
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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.

    https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07DTJ6F2Q/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
    Aha! I’ve already got one of those. Been in a drawer for a few years since I abandoned my “rugged stubble chin” look.
    May not need any more, depending how fussy you are. Mrs C cuts my head hair with it and a pair of long scissors, apart from the beard and eyebrows which I do easypeasy - just run at 4mm. I let the chest grow au naturel.
    You sexy beast.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    This is incredible. The "fraudulent voters" whom DeSantis (had) arrested and jailed this month because they cast a ballot despite a past felony conviction?

    *His own administration* appears to have approved their voter registration applications and told them they could legally vote.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1564254690547826690
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,298
    kamski said:

    Cookie said:

    eristdoof said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cicero said:

    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.
    Quite right, its clearly been invented by Michael Palin and has since gotten out of hand.
    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?
    Nippon or Nihon means “sun origin”. Ni = sun, hon = origin. (Thus the poetic translation “land of the rising sun”.)
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    According to the relevant statute, there were no legal grounds for those arrests.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnaForFlorida/status/1560609418433159168
    Good morning!! Some updates to this from FL Statute.

    The voter registration statute says you have to *willfully* submit false information in order for it to be a crime:
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    *Betting Post*

    Crist is worth betting on at current odds.
  • Options

    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.
    Yes, I see that water boards have costs but my naive take was that meters just add to fixed costs that need to be recouped from higher bills. At least electricity smart meters lead to saving on meter readers' wages. Even reducing usage is pretty suspect although stopping leaks would be good.
  • Options
    kjh said:

    Stocky said:

    eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    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.
    No to be fair I've never done the numbers.

    Though we do have a 1600L blow up swimming pool that we inflate and fill every summer, so I'd assume that would cost a bit if on a metre, but I've never done the numbers.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535

    Nigelb said:

    Stocky said:

    eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Rob Ford brings facts to a prejudice party - fascinating trio of threads sparked by the “Never kissed a Tory” t- shirt:

    In the second volume of @sexliesballots I had a look at voters' attitudes to marriage across party lines. 2010 Labour voters were much more likely to be upset at the idea of a close relative marrying a Conservative than 2010 Tories were of a potential Labour in-law.

    https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1564202925068623874

    Same phenomenon noted among Remain vs Leave voters.

    I would suggest that this is a result of the dominant media culrure being Labour/Remain.
    Remainers in deep Remainia might literally never knowingly encounter a Leaver or a Tory first hand. Potentially, their only exposure to them is via their chosen media, which will generally paint Leavers in a negative light.
    Whereas Leavers in deep Leavistan - even if they personally do not know any Remainers (or Labour voters) will, if they watch any telly at all, be exposed to Remainy/Labour/Centrist Dad views on Remain's own terms. They may not agree with them, but Remain/Labour types will not be the distant and scary stereotypes that Leave/Tory types will be for those in deep Remainia.
    Dominant media culture is Remain and Labour? You do know what the most popular newspapers in the UK are, right?
    She’s done a lot of newspaper work during the campaign.

    The criticism, from those who would criticise her no matter what she did, is the lack of TV interviews - where yes, the culture is very much Blairite and Remain.
    That's thecmost pathetic excuse I have ever heard. Thatcher thought the BBC was run by actual Marxists and it didn't stop her doing TV interviews.
    Right. If Truss does want to model herself as Thatcher, she's totally lacking in this aspect. Margaret Thatcher used to pop up quite often on normal news programs (Eg. Six O'Clock news) to answer questions from that day's news. I don't remember seeing any PM since doing that.
    It's what I like about Borgen - the lovely now-fictitious idea that the PM will rock up to any news programme and happily answer questions free-form with about an hour's notice. Nice for the narrative but not particularly realistic, well certainly not here in the UK.
    I loved the original Borgen - but was disappointed with the recent series. It seems a bit thin and odd to me.

    On the subject of TV - I'm mourning the loss of Better Call Saul.
    The last series is probably worth a binge rewatch.

    Can recommend the German 'Kleo' on Netflix.
    Amusing end of Cold War nostalgia trip; great soundtrack.
    I checked the trailer, quite a strong Killing Eve vibe which I have to say puts me off a bit. I'll definitely give a go though.
    There is a hint of that.
    Less up its own @rse, though.

  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,822
    edited August 2022

    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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?
    I would speculate that the high cost of haircutting is reflective of the high cost of labour in Sweden, due to pension costs, social security, high cost of living etc; I would guess there are other compulsory costs, licensing, insurance etc etc.
    I took a taxi for less than 2 miles in Stockholm a few weeks ago and it cost 330 KR. The meter was going up 1kr per second (about 8p), and this was mid afternoon on a weekday.
    A taxi to the airport costs us about 900 SEK (£73) these days. Or rather, costs our employers. We only pay privately a few times a year.

    The advantage of sky-high prices for services is that when you are on holiday you feel incredibly wealthy. I go mad in Scotland on taxis, haircuts, shopping etc. Everything is so cheap.
    One thing I have noticed in Finland is that the prices in the supermarket are now pretty similar to the UK. The prices in the UK have doubled but the prices in Finland have not been rising very much.

    Unless you go to wetherspoons, the prices when you eat out etc are getting very close, almost indistinguishable; although alcohol is still more expensive, maybe 20-50%.

    On the other hand, one thing that is an incredible bargain in both Finland and Sweden is long distance rail travel. Usually something like 10 Euros for a 150km journey.

    Edit - It is probably best not to take a taxi in these countries, but actually thinking about it, the cost is not that much more than a black cab in London.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,382

    Glad to see you about @NickPalmer . I answered a question you posed last week but suspect I was too late and you’d left the thread.

    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).

    Thanks, Stuart - interesting. One of the benefits of PR is that it allows this sort of nuance. In Denmark you can vote for centrist free-market pacifists, for instance - good luck with figuring out how to vote here if that's your position.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,231
    Alistair said:

    Sandpit said:

    LOL

    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

    That’s hillarious if it’s true.

    Leave a fake HIMARS out in the middle of a field, keep the real one well hidden except for a few minutes at night, wait for the multimillion-dollar enemy missile to blow up the fake one, rinse and repeat. :D
    This is what Serbia did against NATO in the Kosovo war. America blew up a lot of decoys and hee haw Serbian military equipment.
    Of course, I remember that now you mention it. I have visions of an old Ukranian truck, being dressed up like a carnival float to look a little like a HIMARS from a distance or from the air, and the workers all waiting close by for the fireworks display when the enemy rocket hits it.

    Russia claims they’ve taken out more HIMARS trucks than the Ukranians have actually had delivered, the decoys could be one explaination for that - as of course could be the Russians lying through their teeth, as they have been for more than six months now!
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited August 2022
    DM_Andy said:

    Glad to see you about @NickPalmer . I answered a question you posed last week but suspect I was too late and you’d left the thread.

    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).

    Hi Stuart, it looks like from the newspapers that Andersson is trying to sweet talk the Liberals away from allying with the Sweden Democrats. Do you think there's a sincere effort to have a 5 party government even if she has a majority without the Liberals or a message to Liberal voters to say "look, your party has drifted massively and you might not have noticed.". On the other side of the question, how are the Liberals reacting to the claim they are getting into bed with 'fascists'?
    This is very, very close to home for me. Our middle son is strongly Liberal, and I had a tricky talk with him on the way to the station at the weekend. Like me, he thinks he might have to reluctantly switch to the Centre Party this time.

    It seems a bit odd that this country has 2 Lib Dem parties, both of which are tiny. An urban one (L) and an agrarian one (C).

    Although I like Magdalena Andersson, she is a scheming politician just like any other. She is signalling to Liberal voters that their party has stepped over a line in the sand. And she is right.

    You pose difficult but important questions. I’m not sure I know the answers. But one thing is clear: there is *not* going to be a 5-party government. It’ll be Min Gov + Confidence & Supply. The Liberals have (idiotically) said that they will back the Sweden Democrats side but never the Social Democrat side. Gasps of amazement were heard around the land.

    I think the Liberals are very near breaking point. They ditched their last rubbish leader only a few months ago, and this one looks incredibly shaky after a good start.

    Both the Moderates and the Liberals look like bunnies in the headlights. The Moderates thoroughly deserve it. The Liberals I feel a little sorry for.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,384

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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.

    https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07DTJ6F2Q/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
    Aha! I’ve already got one of those. Been in a drawer for a few years since I abandoned my “rugged stubble chin” look.
    May not need any more, depending how fussy you are. Mrs C cuts my head hair with it and a pair of long scissors, apart from the beard and eyebrows which I do easypeasy - just run at 4mm. I let the chest grow au naturel.
    You sexy beast.
    Nah, saves on string semmits.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,068
    edited August 2022

    kjh said:

    Stocky said:

    eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    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.
    No to be fair I've never done the numbers.

    Though we do have a 1600L blow up swimming pool that we inflate and fill every summer, so I'd assume that would cost a bit if on a metre, but I've never done the numbers.
    It'd cost £4.37 on my meter.
  • Options
    DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 601

    DM_Andy said:

    Glad to see you about @NickPalmer . I answered a question you posed last week but suspect I was too late and you’d left the thread.

    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).

    Hi Stuart, it looks like from the newspapers that Andersson is trying to sweet talk the Liberals away from allying with the Sweden Democrats. Do you think there's a sincere effort to have a 5 party government even if she has a majority without the Liberals or a message to Liberal voters to say "look, your party has drifted massively and you might not have noticed.". On the other side of the question, how are the Liberals reacting to the claim they are getting into bed with 'fascists'?
    This is very, very close to home for me. Our middle son is strongly Liberal, and I had a tricky talk with him on the way to the station at the weekend. Like me, he thinks he might have to reluctantly switch to the Centre Party this time.

    It seems a bit odd that this country has 2 Lib Dem parties, both of which are tiny. An urban one (L) and an agrarian one (C).

    Although I like Magdalena Andersson, she is a scheming politician just like any other. She is signalling to Liberal voters that their party has stepped over a line in the sand. And she is right.

    You pose difficult but important questions. I’m not sure I know the answers. But one thing is clear: there is *not* going to be a 5-party government. It’ll be Min Gov + Confidence & Supply. The Liberals have (idiotically) said that they will back the Sweden Democrats side but never the Social Democrat side. Gasps of amazement were heard around the land.

    I think the Liberals are very near breaking point. They ditched their last rubbish leader only a few months ago, and this one looks incredibly shaky after a good start.

    Both the Moderates and the Liberals look like bunnies in the headlights. The Moderates thoroughly deserve it. The Liberals I feel a little sorry for.
    Thanks and you're right on the government size, I was using government in its loosest sense - I assume that Centre, Left and Green have some influence over policy and budget and was wondering if Andersson was extending that offer (C&S in exchange for some say over priorities) to the Liberals if they ditch the Sweden Democrats.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Predictable, but sector bosses have apparently been trying to get some response from government for nearly six months.

    Thousands of UK pubs ‘face closure’ without energy bills support
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

    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.

    https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07DTJ6F2Q/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
    Aha! I’ve already got one of those. Been in a drawer for a few years since I abandoned my “rugged stubble chin” look.
    May not need any more, depending how fussy you are. Mrs C cuts my head hair with it and a pair of long scissors, apart from the beard and eyebrows which I do easypeasy - just run at 4mm. I let the chest grow au naturel.
    You sexy beast.
    Nah, saves on string semmits.
    Aha. More beast than beauty.

    I never pictured you as a Rab C sort.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Stocky said:

    eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    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.
    No to be fair I've never done the numbers.

    Though we do have a 1600L blow up swimming pool that we inflate and fill every summer, so I'd assume that would cost a bit if on a metre, but I've never done the numbers.
    It'd cost £4.37 on my meter.
    Is that it?

    Thought it'd be more to be honest.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,068
    edited August 2022

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Stocky said:

    eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    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.
    No to be fair I've never done the numbers.

    Though we do have a 1600L blow up swimming pool that we inflate and fill every summer, so I'd assume that would cost a bit if on a metre, but I've never done the numbers.
    It'd cost £4.37 on my meter.
    Is that it?

    Thought it'd be more to be honest.
    It's a bit more for you, £4.95 as you're in United Utilities area.

    Breakeven points for UU in tons of water per year are

    76 tons flat or terrace
    108 tons semi
    122 tons detached.
    245 tons if you're Rishi Sunak.

    https://www.unitedutilities.com/globalassets/documents/pdf/8814a-household-charges-at-a-glance-2021-2022-v6-web-acc.pdf
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited August 2022
    DM_Andy said:

    DM_Andy said:

    Glad to see you about @NickPalmer . I answered a question you posed last week but suspect I was too late and you’d left the thread.

    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).

    Hi Stuart, it looks like from the newspapers that Andersson is trying to sweet talk the Liberals away from allying with the Sweden Democrats. Do you think there's a sincere effort to have a 5 party government even if she has a majority without the Liberals or a message to Liberal voters to say "look, your party has drifted massively and you might not have noticed.". On the other side of the question, how are the Liberals reacting to the claim they are getting into bed with 'fascists'?
    This is very, very close to home for me. Our middle son is strongly Liberal, and I had a tricky talk with him on the way to the station at the weekend. Like me, he thinks he might have to reluctantly switch to the Centre Party this time.

    It seems a bit odd that this country has 2 Lib Dem parties, both of which are tiny. An urban one (L) and an agrarian one (C).

    Although I like Magdalena Andersson, she is a scheming politician just like any other. She is signalling to Liberal voters that their party has stepped over a line in the sand. And she is right.

    You pose difficult but important questions. I’m not sure I know the answers. But one thing is clear: there is *not* going to be a 5-party government. It’ll be Min Gov + Confidence & Supply. The Liberals have (idiotically) said that they will back the Sweden Democrats side but never the Social Democrat side. Gasps of amazement were heard around the land.

    I think the Liberals are very near breaking point. They ditched their last rubbish leader only a few months ago, and this one looks incredibly shaky after a good start.

    Both the Moderates and the Liberals look like bunnies in the headlights. The Moderates thoroughly deserve it. The Liberals I feel a little sorry for.
    Thanks and you're right on the government size, I was using government in its loosest sense - I assume that Centre, Left and Green have some influence over policy and budget and was wondering if Andersson was extending that offer (C&S in exchange for some say over priorities) to the Liberals if they ditch the Sweden Democrats.
    Short answer: yes.

    Like the wise leader she is, she is offering the Liberals the same deal as the Left, Greens and Centre: let’s haggle!

    Long answer: it’s bloody complicated. Eg the Centre refuse to back Andersson if she is also giving concessions to the Left Party (ex-communists).

    If Andersson is to remain PM she’ll have to play one hell of a game. Luckily her opponents are intent on winning a foot-shooting competition.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,215
    Sandpit said:

    LOL

    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

    That’s hillarious if it’s true.

    Leave a fake HIMARS out in the middle of a field, keep the real one well hidden except for a few minutes at night, wait for the multimillion-dollar enemy missile to blow up the fake one, rinse and repeat. :D
    And if you run out of decoys, tell the media what you've been doing.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,505
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 39% (-4)
    CON: 31% (+3)
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 7% (-)
    REF: 5% (+1)

    via @YouGov, 23 - 24 Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1564567871476453382
  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,734

    Glad to see you about @NickPalmer . I answered a question you posed last week but suspect I was too late and you’d left the thread.

    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).

    Thanks, Stuart - interesting. One of the benefits of PR is that it allows this sort of nuance. In Denmark you can vote for centrist free-market pacifists, for instance - good luck with figuring out how to vote here if that's your position.
    Lib Dem, obviously!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,231

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 39% (-4)
    CON: 31% (+3)
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 7% (-)
    REF: 5% (+1)

    via @YouGov, 23 - 24 Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1564567871476453382

    Oh. That one wasn’t in the script.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Scott_xP said:
    No

    She is not going to want to go straight from bottling interviews over the leadership to bottling interviews over a GE and the half of the populace that doesn't want a GE would be enraged by more timewasting during a crisis. not going to happen.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Glad to see you about @NickPalmer . I answered a question you posed last week but suspect I was too late and you’d left the thread.

    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).

    Thanks, Stuart - interesting. One of the benefits of PR is that it allows this sort of nuance. In Denmark you can vote for centrist free-market pacifists, for instance - good luck with figuring out how to vote here if that's your position.
    Try being a free-market, pro-nuclear energy, pro oil & gas supporter of Scottish independence 😄
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Stocky said:

    eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    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.
    No to be fair I've never done the numbers.

    Though we do have a 1600L blow up swimming pool that we inflate and fill every summer, so I'd assume that would cost a bit if on a metre, but I've never done the numbers.
    It'd cost £4.37 on my meter.
    Is that it?

    Thought it'd be more to be honest.
    It's a bit more for you, £4.95 as you're in United Utilities area.

    Breakeven points for UU in tons of water per year are

    76 tons flat or terrace
    108 tons semi
    122 tons detached.

    https://www.unitedutilities.com/globalassets/documents/pdf/8814a-household-charges-at-a-glance-2021-2022-v6-web-acc.pdf
    I'm not used to thinking in tons of water, that's approximately 1000 litres of water isn't it?

    So about 300 litres of water per day to break even for a semi, or about 200 for a flat or terrace? Seems like a lot of water.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Sandpit said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 39% (-4)
    CON: 31% (+3)
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 7% (-)
    REF: 5% (+1)

    via @YouGov, 23 - 24 Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1564567871476453382

    Oh. That one wasn’t in the script.
    SKSFPE
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    ClippP said:

    Glad to see you about @NickPalmer . I answered a question you posed last week but suspect I was too late and you’d left the thread.

    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).

    Thanks, Stuart - interesting. One of the benefits of PR is that it allows this sort of nuance. In Denmark you can vote for centrist free-market pacifists, for instance - good luck with figuring out how to vote here if that's your position.
    Lib Dem, obviously!
    Lib Dems are pacifists?!

    They support Trident FFS.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Sandpit said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 39% (-4)
    CON: 31% (+3)
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 7% (-)
    REF: 5% (+1)

    via @YouGov, 23 - 24 Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1564567871476453382

    Oh. That one wasn’t in the script.
    Keir Starmer is a dud.

    That one was.
  • Options
    londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,300

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 39% (-4)
    CON: 31% (+3)
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 7% (-)
    REF: 5% (+1)

    via @YouGov, 23 - 24 Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1564567871476453382

    SKS please explain 😀
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,068

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Stocky said:

    eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    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.
    No to be fair I've never done the numbers.

    Though we do have a 1600L blow up swimming pool that we inflate and fill every summer, so I'd assume that would cost a bit if on a metre, but I've never done the numbers.
    It'd cost £4.37 on my meter.
    Is that it?

    Thought it'd be more to be honest.
    It's a bit more for you, £4.95 as you're in United Utilities area.

    Breakeven points for UU in tons of water per year are

    76 tons flat or terrace
    108 tons semi
    122 tons detached.

    https://www.unitedutilities.com/globalassets/documents/pdf/8814a-household-charges-at-a-glance-2021-2022-v6-web-acc.pdf
    I'm not used to thinking in tons of water, that's approximately 1000 litres of water isn't it?

    So about 300 litres of water per day to break even for a semi, or about 200 for a flat or terrace? Seems like a lot of water.
    Yes, it's exactly 1000 litres of water or 1 metre cubed...

    As I said it might make sense for a large family in a terrace to stay rated but for most people it won't.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,819
    This morning, we sent a letter to the Conservative Party to seek a Judicial Review of its conduct of the election of Party leader and the UK's next prime minister.

    This is because we believe it is undemocratic and unlawful.

    THREAD ⬇️🧵

    https://torto.se/3wFpM2K
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,068
    Scott_xP said:

    This morning, we sent a letter to the Conservative Party to seek a Judicial Review of its conduct of the election of Party leader and the UK's next prime minister.

    This is because we believe it is undemocratic and unlawful.

    THREAD ⬇️🧵

    https://torto.se/3wFpM2K

    Oh christ this is either Maugham or Cruddas - both absolubtely fucking mad.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    edited August 2022
    Scott_xP said:

    This morning, we sent a letter to the Conservative Party to seek a Judicial Review of its conduct of the election of Party leader and the UK's next prime minister.

    This is because we believe it is undemocratic and unlawful.

    THREAD ⬇️🧵

    https://torto.se/3wFpM2K

    I wonder how long it will take a judge to throw it out, if it gets that far? Nine seconds, or a bit longer if they have to stop laughing first?

    Edit - presumably it will take about four years to come to court anyway by which time the matter will be moot.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,215
    Sandpit said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 39% (-4)
    CON: 31% (+3)
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 7% (-)
    REF: 5% (+1)

    via @YouGov, 23 - 24 Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1564567871476453382

    Oh. That one wasn’t in the script.
    The person who wrote the script hadn't heard of "reversion to the mean"? Those figures are almost identical to the one before last.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 39% (-4)
    CON: 31% (+3)
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 7% (-)
    REF: 5% (+1)

    via @YouGov, 23 - 24 Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1564567871476453382

    Scottish split:

    SNP 46%
    SLab 23%
    SCon 17%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    Ref 1%
    oth (presumably mainly Alba?) 3%

    Baxtered (new boundaries):

    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    SLD 1 seat (-1)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SCon 1 seat (-5)

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,231

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Stocky said:

    eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    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.
    No to be fair I've never done the numbers.

    Though we do have a 1600L blow up swimming pool that we inflate and fill every summer, so I'd assume that would cost a bit if on a metre, but I've never done the numbers.
    It'd cost £4.37 on my meter.
    Is that it?

    Thought it'd be more to be honest.
    It's a bit more for you, £4.95 as you're in United Utilities area.

    Breakeven points for UU in tons of water per year are

    76 tons flat or terrace
    108 tons semi
    122 tons detached.

    https://www.unitedutilities.com/globalassets/documents/pdf/8814a-household-charges-at-a-glance-2021-2022-v6-web-acc.pdf
    I'm not used to thinking in tons of water, that's approximately 1000 litres of water isn't it?

    So about 300 litres of water per day to break even for a semi, or about 200 for a flat or terrace? Seems like a lot of water.
    A (metric) tonne is exactly 1,000 litres of water!
    An old Imperial “Long Ton” is 2,240lb, 20cwt, or 1,016kg.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,219

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 39% (-4)
    CON: 31% (+3)
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 7% (-)
    REF: 5% (+1)

    via @YouGov, 23 - 24 Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1564567871476453382

    8 point lead. Bang in line with Techne and 2 R+W polls, all taken more recently.
    The previous 15 point lead was something of an outlier I reckon.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    Tracking rare vertebrates by DNA sequencing fly poo.

    iDNA from roadside flies detects rare mammals, birds, and reptiles. New and simple protocol: dissolve fly poop in water, metabarcode with MinION or Illumina. >400 flies belonging to 25 species ==> 294 identifications ==> 20 vertebrate species.
    https://twitter.com/asrivath/status/1564278635456086016

    Illustrates how cheap and simple to use the technology has become.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 39% (-4)
    CON: 31% (+3)
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 7% (-)
    REF: 5% (+1)

    via @YouGov, 23 - 24 Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1564567871476453382

    Scottish split:

    SNP 46%
    SLab 23%
    SCon 17%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    Ref 1%
    oth (presumably mainly Alba?) 3%

    Baxtered (new boundaries):

    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    SLD 1 seat (-1)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SCon 1 seat (-5)

    Scottish subsample KLAXONNNNNN!
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,298
    edited August 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This morning, we sent a letter to the Conservative Party to seek a Judicial Review of its conduct of the election of Party leader and the UK's next prime minister.

    This is because we believe it is undemocratic and unlawful.

    THREAD ⬇️🧵

    https://torto.se/3wFpM2K

    I wonder how long it will take a judge to throw it out, if it gets that far? Nine seconds, or a bit longer if they have to stop laughing first?

    Edit - presumably it will take about four years to come to court anyway by which time the matter will be moot.
    It’ll only be moot if the Tories aren’t having another leadership election by then!

  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    ydoethur said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 39% (-4)
    CON: 31% (+3)
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 7% (-)
    REF: 5% (+1)

    via @YouGov, 23 - 24 Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1564567871476453382

    Scottish split:

    SNP 46%
    SLab 23%
    SCon 17%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    Ref 1%
    oth (presumably mainly Alba?) 3%

    Baxtered (new boundaries):

    SNP 54 seats (+6)
    SLD 1 seat (-1)
    SLab 1 seat (nc)
    SCon 1 seat (-5)

    Scottish subsample KLAXONNNNNN!
    I miss the Scottish Tory Surge klaxon. We used to hear it pretty much every day in the early years of PB. Gone out of fashion. I wonder why?

  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,048
    Scott_xP said:

    This morning, we sent a letter to the Conservative Party to seek a Judicial Review of its conduct of the election of Party leader and the UK's next prime minister.

    This is because we believe it is undemocratic and unlawful.

    THREAD ⬇️🧵

    https://torto.se/3wFpM2K

    Cheap PR stunt? Former editor of the Times and Director of BBC News so unusual profile for such an act.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This morning, we sent a letter to the Conservative Party to seek a Judicial Review of its conduct of the election of Party leader and the UK's next prime minister.

    This is because we believe it is undemocratic and unlawful.

    THREAD ⬇️🧵

    https://torto.se/3wFpM2K

    Oh christ this is either Maugham or Cruddas - both absolubtely fucking mad.
    How many fools and their money are going to be parted with this one?

    We keep hearing there's not enough money in the justice system for things to go to trial, yet vexatious litigants seem to find a way to get their time in court often enough.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,065
    F1: hmm. Doing something else so haven't bet yet but Ladbrokes have cut Perez's odds from 11 to 10 today already, for the win each way.

    Could be worth backing. While Verstappen got the attention, Perez was 9s clear of Sainz and in no risk of losing the place at a circuit which isn't his best.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This morning, we sent a letter to the Conservative Party to seek a Judicial Review of its conduct of the election of Party leader and the UK's next prime minister.

    This is because we believe it is undemocratic and unlawful.

    THREAD ⬇️🧵

    https://torto.se/3wFpM2K

    I wonder how long it will take a judge to throw it out, if it gets that far? Nine seconds, or a bit longer if they have to stop laughing first?

    Edit - presumably it will take about four years to come to court anyway by which time the matter will be moot.
    It’ll only be moot if the Tories aren’t having another leadership election by then!

    And if they are in government at the time. Don't forget that point.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,806
    edited August 2022
    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    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.

    I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.

    But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.

    We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
    I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.

    We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.

    When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threated with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.

    That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
  • Options
    MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    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.

    I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.

    But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.

    We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
    I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.

    We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.

    When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.

    That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
    That poll suggests that giving people their own money back to cope with the crisis as they see fit is maybe not such a bad idea after all.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    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.

    I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.

    But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.

    We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
    I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.

    We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.

    When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.

    That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
    Blue on blue action.

    I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?

    (That was your cue Sean.)
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,048

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This morning, we sent a letter to the Conservative Party to seek a Judicial Review of its conduct of the election of Party leader and the UK's next prime minister.

    This is because we believe it is undemocratic and unlawful.

    THREAD ⬇️🧵

    https://torto.se/3wFpM2K

    I wonder how long it will take a judge to throw it out, if it gets that far? Nine seconds, or a bit longer if they have to stop laughing first?

    Edit - presumably it will take about four years to come to court anyway by which time the matter will be moot.
    It’ll only be moot if the Tories aren’t having another leadership election by then!

    At first glance, it only appears to be about a party de facto selecting a replacement PM not about selecting a new leader. So assuming Tories in opposition, moot.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,930
    edited August 2022

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    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.

    I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.

    But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.

    We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
    I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.

    We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.

    When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.

    That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
    What a shock, Putinguy thinks defeating Russia's invasion of a sovereign European territory is utterly absurd.

    The only thing utterly absurd is Putin, Russia and their apologists like yourself. Defeating fascist warmongers isn't absurd.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,806
    MISTY said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    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.

    I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.

    But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.

    We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
    I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.

    We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.

    When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.

    That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
    That poll suggests that giving people their own money back to cope with the crisis as they see fit is maybe not such a bad idea after all.
    It isn't a terrible one - at least it doesn't drive up the price of energy directly.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,298

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This morning, we sent a letter to the Conservative Party to seek a Judicial Review of its conduct of the election of Party leader and the UK's next prime minister.

    This is because we believe it is undemocratic and unlawful.

    THREAD ⬇️🧵

    https://torto.se/3wFpM2K

    I wonder how long it will take a judge to throw it out, if it gets that far? Nine seconds, or a bit longer if they have to stop laughing first?

    Edit - presumably it will take about four years to come to court anyway by which time the matter will be moot.
    It’ll only be moot if the Tories aren’t having another leadership election by then!

    At first glance, it only appears to be about a party de facto selecting a replacement PM not about selecting a new leader. So assuming Tories in opposition, moot.
    Good point! If it’s about the party in power, then moot for the Tories for a very long time at the rate they’re going.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,231

    F1: hmm. Doing something else so haven't bet yet but Ladbrokes have cut Perez's odds from 11 to 10 today already, for the win each way.

    Could be worth backing. While Verstappen got the attention, Perez was 9s clear of Sainz and in no risk of losing the place at a circuit which isn't his best.

    For a long-odds bet on the Dutch GP, I’d either lay Verstappen for the win, or back him not to finish.

    He’s rightly the odds-on favourite, but he’s broken down twice already this year.
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    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.

    I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.

    But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.

    We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
    I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.

    We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.

    When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.

    That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
    Blue on blue action.

    I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?

    (That was your cue Sean.)
    You think Putinguy is blue?

    Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,819
    🚨 🚨

    Goldman Sachs has suggested that UK inflation could reach 22% https://www.ft.com/content/b69a30c0-d72d-4a19-95cd-acc7a18da1bd
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,012
    edited August 2022
    Nigelb said:

    Tracking rare vertebrates by DNA sequencing fly poo.

    iDNA from roadside flies detects rare mammals, birds, and reptiles. New and simple protocol: dissolve fly poop in water, metabarcode with MinION or Illumina. >400 flies belonging to 25 species ==> 294 identifications ==> 20 vertebrate species.
    https://twitter.com/asrivath/status/1564278635456086016

    Illustrates how cheap and simple to use the technology has become.

    Yup.

    Can't be long before it is all handheld and sequencing can be done in the field.

    A student was sequencing Nightjar droppings here in the Flatlands to work out which moths they were eating, but unfortunately the whole UK moth population isn't in the database yet so they had to add a few themselves.

    The project to sequence every UK species by 2030 will make a big difference.

    Have done some pond sampling for eDNA to see if there are newts. Much quicker and more accurate than setting out bottle traps. Costs a couple of hundred quid, which is considerably less than having a surveyor out on multiple nights.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,671
    edited August 2022

    Scott_xP said:

    This morning, we sent a letter to the Conservative Party to seek a Judicial Review of its conduct of the election of Party leader and the UK's next prime minister.

    This is because we believe it is undemocratic and unlawful.

    THREAD ⬇️🧵

    https://torto.se/3wFpM2K

    Cheap PR stunt? Former editor of the Times and Director of BBC News so unusual profile for such an act.
    Stung by Maitlis' charge of the BBC being a hotbed or right wing extremists?
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This morning, we sent a letter to the Conservative Party to seek a Judicial Review of its conduct of the election of Party leader and the UK's next prime minister.

    This is because we believe it is undemocratic and unlawful.

    THREAD ⬇️🧵

    https://torto.se/3wFpM2K

    Oh christ this is either Maugham or Cruddas - both absolubtely fucking mad.
    It adds to the gaiety of the nation. The main complaint seems to be that the Conservative Party refused to release information about who is entitled to vote, assuming it even knows. It is ironic that the Conservative government says voters must provide photo ID to vote, but the Conservative Party will take anyone.

    31. For the avoidance of doubt Tortoise does not seek to challenge whether the leader of the Conservative Party should be elected in this way; but rather Tortoise seeks to ensure that the process being undertaken by the Conservative Party meets fair and reasonable standards of transparency and accountability.
    https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2022/08/30/our-case-for-judicial-review-30-august-2022/
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,806

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    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.

    I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.

    But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.

    We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
    I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.

    We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.

    When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.

    That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
    Blue on blue action.

    I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?

    (That was your cue Sean.)
    You think Putinguy is blue?

    Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
    I am not loyal to the Tory party. However, I will claim to show more genuine patriotism than you've ever done - that patriotism being for Britain (UK) rather than from an unreciprocated hardon for the USA that you and so many in our political class suffer from.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Nigelb said:

    Tracking rare vertebrates by DNA sequencing fly poo.

    iDNA from roadside flies detects rare mammals, birds, and reptiles. New and simple protocol: dissolve fly poop in water, metabarcode with MinION or Illumina. >400 flies belonging to 25 species ==> 294 identifications ==> 20 vertebrate species.
    https://twitter.com/asrivath/status/1564278635456086016

    Illustrates how cheap and simple to use the technology has become.

    Yup.

    Can't be long before it is all handheld and sequencing can be done in the field.

    A student was sequencing Nightjar droppings in the Flatlands to work out which moths they were eating, but unfortunately the whole UK moth population isn't in the database yet so they had to add a few themselves.

    The project to sequence every UK species by 2030 will make a big difference.

    Have done some pond sampling for eDNA to see if there are newts. Much quicker and more accurate than setting out bottle traps.
    And less intrusive!

    I’m sure the newts are relieved.

  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,671

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    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.

    I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.

    But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.

    We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
    I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.

    We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.

    When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threated with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.

    That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
    If only we could afford the wood for the fire.

    But yes (a) well made point(s).
  • Options
    pingping Posts: 3,748
    edited August 2022
    Scott_xP said:

    🚨 🚨

    Goldman Sachs has suggested that UK inflation could reach 22% https://www.ft.com/content/b69a30c0-d72d-4a19-95cd-acc7a18da1bd

    This isn’t funny any more.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,065
    Mr. Sandpit, yes but Verstappen's two DNFs were both very early on.

    A DNF for reliability is still possible but a driver error seems unlikely.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    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.

    I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.

    But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.

    We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
    I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.

    We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.

    When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.

    That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
    Blue on blue action.

    I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?

    (That was your cue Sean.)
    You think Putinguy is blue?

    Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
    I am not loyal to the Tory party. However, I will claim to show more genuine patriotism than you've ever done - that patriotism being for Britain (UK) rather than from an unreciprocated hardon for the USA that you and so many in our political class suffer from.

    Sean, hurry up! We’re onto hardons now.
This discussion has been closed.