Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
I think there is an aversion to the state telling you how to behave at play. I keep seeing posters suggest that the cost pressure has been removed from energy costs this winter. This is simply not true - its been heavily mitigated for sure, but most folk are seeing energy bills go up. At the same time the media is all over this with 'how reduce your bills' stories. Thats what the people pay attention too - Phil and Holly, or the One Show, not government broadcasts.
People will be taking action to save money this winter and this will help reduce consumption, all without the state having to do anything.
I think we need to look at this just as we did the first lockdown. Clear and consistent messaging from the government will help keep the lights on this winter (and probably the following two). Hoping that enough people act voluntarily without proper advice or from non official advice will result in rolling blackouts and interruptions in gas supply for households.
The downside to doing nothing is potentially very large and the upside is non-existent. Liz Truss is putting the nation at risk for some idiotic ideology. Even I supported the first lockdown, just because there were so many unknowns. This is similar, except we know that normal usage by households and industry will result in blackouts. Even basic advice in when in the day or night to run dishwashers and washing machines or how to save electricity when using the oven (tip - don't use the fan assist, put the temperature up by 10 degrees vs the instructions and cut the cooking time a bit). These are basic information that loads of people just don't know, giving people the tools to help themselves and the nation is a win/win.
I already felt that there is no need for the Government to be getting involved given that the media and the public is wall-to-wall talking about all this already.
But any comparisons with Lockdown absolutely reinforce the notion that the Government should not get involved. Lockdown was an awful accumulation of power by the state that was hard to roll back on and anything like that again is to absolutely be avoided. Getting away from the idea that the state is the answer to all life's problems is important.
Quite frankly, the public and media are full of little else but this already. Everyone I know is rationally doing what they can anyway. That is what we need, rational communication and people sensibly doing sensible things, let experts talk and communicate good ideas, no need for the state to be doing it.
"Lockdown was an awful accumulation of power by the state that was hard to roll back on" is a weird description of something that was a very targeted intervention in response to an extremely unusual situation, and which ended very promptly. It wasn't at all difficult to roll back on. We had lockdowns: they ended. They generally ended sooner than public opinion wanted them to!
If you were talking about China, you might have a point. But this is not China.
All that toadying makes sense. I hope it's worth being associated to this rabble of the government for him. Aaron has definitely take a hit to his reputation over the last few weeks.
Given the shower of shit in team Truss, it's a questionable choice.
I can see the logic. It's reasonably easy to surmise that there's a pretty high chance of losing his seat at the next election. Given that most people go into politics in order to try and 'do good' in some way - if he sees that he has a limited amount of time left what can he most helpfully do - perhaps making small but important changes in the MoJ to improve things is better than criticizing from the outside to no real effect..
I don't say he's absolutely wrong to accept - and FWIW he seems a fairly decent guy. Just that it's a questionable choice.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
Do less is usually right wing code for cutting universal credit.
Usually, yes, but in this instance the "less" that Kinabalu is worried Truss doesn't want to do is not UC but is 2 for 1 deals instead.
If the fact that the PM isn't getting involved in 2 for 1 deals is your biggest concern, then maybe the PM actually has the right priorities?
Any sensible preparations for winter power cuts ahead? Buying a couple of decent usb torches and a usb reading light. A chance to catch up on some reading.
What about power back ups for PCs? Seems they don't last very long and guess home wifi wont work either so benefit would be safely closing down rather than keeping it online?
Anything I can do for fridge/freezer?
Blankets and jumpers.
Torch for reading light.
Portable camping gas stove and a stove kettle - most regular gas cookers won’t run with no power, they have a safety cutout.
For a desktop PC, get a UPS.
You can get a device called an inverter, that will turn your car engine into a generator and give 240v. It’ll be enough to run the PC, wifi router, and chargers for phones, laptops, torches etc https://www.amazon.co.uk/LVYUAN-Inverter-Converter-Cigarette-Lighter/dp/B08PS1LKCP/ Don’t run the inverter without the engine running (it will kill the battery in minutes!), make sure your car can’t be stolen if left with the engine running, and don’t run out of petrol!
Fridge/freezer not much, but a modern one will keep cold for a couple of days if you don’t open it. You could run it from the inverter for a bit, if nothing else is plugged in.
Get a generator if you really need power for more than just emergencies, it’s more efficient than using the car!
The cigarette lighter in a car is usually on a 10A fuse so 120W before any losses in the inverter. Useless.
If you're going to do it you need something like a 1000W inverter than can draw 100A+ (they are usually fused at 150-200A) from the battery.
Yes, if you’re gonna plug your fridge in, use the battery cables provided and not the cigarette lighter, and don’t leave it running long.
They are good for laptops and routers though, which is what you might need in an emergency,
Hyundai Ioniq does 3.6kW V2L. That's what you really want!
I have Nissan Leaf which is theoretically capable of powering our home for a couple of days from a full charge, but the reversible charger required to do so seems to be either prohibitively expensive or unavailable, depending where I look. Granted, it has to be a pretty complex bit of kit to handle switching cleanly between mains and car power.
Also, most of the devices that let you feed power from the electric car to the home, won’t do so if there’s a power cut in the home. They need to get the a/c current in phase with the mains power supply, and can’t do that when there’s a blackout.
I think there are legal issues involved: you are not allowed to feed mains into an unpowered grid feed without the power companies being aware of it for obvious safety reasons. If you want to use your car as a battery to, eg, store solar from your house & feed back from it in the evening then this is fine, but if you use it when there’s a power cut due to downed power lines you risk electrocuting the linesmen sent to fix the problem.
People that want this kind of off grid independence are, IIRC, required to fit equipment that can isolate the house circuits from the outside when you connect a power source to your house electrics. I’m not up on the details though.
(Not that this will stop ejits from hooking a diesel generator up to their house with a home-made plug-plug power cable. But if you do that then you are a 100% grade A twerp.)
Yes, the correct device won’t feed into the mains during a blackout. That would make one hell of a bang when the power comes back on, if it was out of phase. Plus, as you suggest, giving a linesman or power company transformer an unexpected shock!
There’s a process it has to go through when the mains comes back online, to get everything in phase before switching back to it.
Having just been shown something by Twin A - can I just say no matter how stupid and thick you think the general public can be - it's possible for them to even stupider and thicker than you could ever imagine..
Can't say anymore because technically I shouldn't have seen it but oh boy.....
Any sensible preparations for winter power cuts ahead? Buying a couple of decent usb torches and a usb reading light. A chance to catch up on some reading.
What about power back ups for PCs? Seems they don't last very long and guess home wifi wont work either so benefit would be safely closing down rather than keeping it online?
Anything I can do for fridge/freezer?
Just FYI for everyone here: Some ikea LED desk lamps are actually USB powered - they come with a USB charger & the power cable has a USB plug on the end. You can plug them into a USB powerbank & get hours & hours of light out of them - they’re only 3W. This is one example: https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/p/harte-led-work-lamp-white-silver-colour-10527247/ . I suspect any IKEA lamp that is listed as requiring 5V power fits this category. Something like this is a much better idea than candles, which are a fire risk. Especially so given that we’re not really used to using candles as a light source these days.
On computers: Yes, the point of a small PSU is mostly to give you enough time for a clean shutdown. You’d need a large battery to cover a three hour blackout for a desktop. Switch to a laptop & keep it fully charged?
Keep the fridge & freezer closed during a blackout if you can - opening the door lets a lot of heat in (not quite as important for chest freezers - you don’t dump the cold air out of those by opening the top).
And full. It makes sense to fill any voids in a freezer with milk cartons full of water
If you are going to do that, why not use cartons of semi-skimmed milk? It still freezes and defrosts OK and you have a foodstuff stored rather than just water
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Nice rhetoric but untrue. We live in one of the most centralised and managed systems in the world and there is no plan to change. The state manages up to half of all expenditure.
Libertarian world: vouchers for schools for the poorest, all school provision a matter for local action; health - private insurance + support for the poorest; pensions/welfare - family is first port of call followed by local voluntary sector; pay - no legislation of minima or maxima; regulation, H and S - entirely a matter for each industry/activity to organise in its own legal self interest; finance: caveat emptor - no FSCS. BBC - abolished. Signs saying "No dogs, no Irish, no coloureds": lawful.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The saying is sometimes given as, “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one.”
Except actually that's a much more recent expansion.
Of course, the key point is that good governance of a country is a much more complicated issue than can be captured in throwaway slogans.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Any sensible preparations for winter power cuts ahead? Buying a couple of decent usb torches and a usb reading light. A chance to catch up on some reading.
What about power back ups for PCs? Seems they don't last very long and guess home wifi wont work either so benefit would be safely closing down rather than keeping it online?
Anything I can do for fridge/freezer?
Just FYI for everyone here: Some ikea LED desk lamps are actually USB powered - they come with a USB charger & the power cable has a USB plug on the end. You can plug them into a USB powerbank & get hours & hours of light out of them - they’re only 3W. This is one example: https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/p/harte-led-work-lamp-white-silver-colour-10527247/ . I suspect any IKEA lamp that is listed as requiring 5V power fits this category. Something like this is a much better idea than candles, which are a fire risk. Especially so given that we’re not really used to using candles as a light source these days.
On computers: Yes, the point of a small PSU is mostly to give you enough time for a clean shutdown. You’d need a large battery to cover a three hour blackout for a desktop. Switch to a laptop & keep it fully charged?
Keep the fridge & freezer closed during a blackout if you can - opening the door lets a lot of heat in (not quite as important for chest freezers - you don’t dump the cold air out of those by opening the top).
And full. It makes sense to fill any voids in a freezer with milk cartons full of water
If you are going to do that, why not use cartons of semi-skimmed milk? It still freezes and defrosts OK and you have a foodstuff stored rather than just water
I find it doesn't always work if you leave it more than a couple of months.
Does absolutely nobody on here think Truss has a point? This issue already has saturation coverage and there are other things they could spend the money on.
Because it only costs £15m.
Given the current popularity of the government, can you really see anyone taking a government information campaign seriously?
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
I think there is an aversion to the state telling you how to behave at play. I keep seeing posters suggest that the cost pressure has been removed from energy costs this winter. This is simply not true - its been heavily mitigated for sure, but most folk are seeing energy bills go up. At the same time the media is all over this with 'how reduce your bills' stories. Thats what the people pay attention too - Phil and Holly, or the One Show, not government broadcasts.
People will be taking action to save money this winter and this will help reduce consumption, all without the state having to do anything.
I think we need to look at this just as we did the first lockdown. Clear and consistent messaging from the government will help keep the lights on this winter (and probably the following two). Hoping that enough people act voluntarily without proper advice or from non official advice will result in rolling blackouts and interruptions in gas supply for households.
The downside to doing nothing is potentially very large and the upside is non-existent. Liz Truss is putting the nation at risk for some idiotic ideology. Even I supported the first lockdown, just because there were so many unknowns. This is similar, except we know that normal usage by households and industry will result in blackouts. Even basic advice in when in the day or night to run dishwashers and washing machines or how to save electricity when using the oven (tip - don't use the fan assist, put the temperature up by 10 degrees vs the instructions and cut the cooking time a bit). These are basic information that loads of people just don't know, giving people the tools to help themselves and the nation is a win/win.
I already felt that there is no need for the Government to be getting involved given that the media and the public is wall-to-wall talking about all this already.
But any comparisons with Lockdown absolutely reinforce the notion that the Government should not get involved. Lockdown was an awful accumulation of power by the state that was hard to roll back on and anything like that again is to absolutely be avoided. Getting away from the idea that the state is the answer to all life's problems is important.
Quite frankly, the public and media are full of little else but this already. Everyone I know is rationally doing what they can anyway. That is what we need, rational communication and people sensibly doing sensible things, let experts talk and communicate good ideas, no need for the state to be doing it.
"Lockdown was an awful accumulation of power by the state that was hard to roll back on" is a weird description of something that was a very targeted intervention in response to an extremely unusual situation, and which ended very promptly. It wasn't at all difficult to roll back on. We had lockdowns: they ended. They generally ended sooner than public opinion wanted them to!
If you were talking about China, you might have a point. But this is not China.
Lockdown continued for far, far too long.
The most vulnerable were vaccinated by Valentine's Day, the vulnerable were vaccinated by the end of March, yet lockdown continued until July.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
All that toadying makes sense. I hope it's worth being associated to this rabble of the government for him. Aaron has definitely take a hit to his reputation over the last few weeks.
He's a Tory MP. The logic of his career is that he should want to be a member of a Tory government. So congratulations are in order. Of course I wouldn't touch this appalling shower with a shitty stick, but then I wouldn't be a Tory MP either!
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
Do less is usually right wing code for cutting universal credit.
Usually, yes, but in this instance the "less" that Kinabalu is worried Truss doesn't want to do is not UC but is 2 for 1 deals instead.
If the fact that the PM isn't getting involved in 2 for 1 deals is your biggest concern, then maybe the PM actually has the right priorities?
It's not my biggest concern, and Getting involved in 2 for 1 deals is a nonsense way of putting it.
Does absolutely nobody on here think Truss has a point? This issue already has saturation coverage and there are other things they could spend the money on.
Because it only costs £15m.
Given the current popularity of the government, can you really see anyone taking a government information campaign seriously?
The government is expected to spend £200bn on energy in the next couple of years.
If the campaign reduces usage by 0.01% it saves £20m vs £15m cost. If the campaign reduces usage by 0.5% it saves £985m If the campaign reduces usage by 3% it saves almost £6bn.
Plus environmental and continuity of supply benefits.
This is absolutely the best possible investment the UK can make for £15m and it is not even close.
“We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis,” Biden said, adding that “we have a direct threat of the use of nuclear weapons if in fact things continue down the path they are going”. https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1578272634315321344
Does absolutely nobody on here think Truss has a point? This issue already has saturation coverage and there are other things they could spend the money on.
Because it only costs £15m.
Given the current popularity of the government, can you really see anyone taking a government information campaign seriously?
Yes because the message would be being reinforced elsewhere.
The problem at the moment is that a lot of advice comes from folk memory of 30/40 years ago and so is completely incorrect for the modern world. For an example switching lights off is useful but a 6 watt bulb costs 0.2p per hour to power so switching it off won't save you anything worthwhile. 20 years ago when it was a 100w bulb that was a different matter - 5 bulbs on would be costing you 15p...
Having just been shown something by Twin A - can I just say no matter how stupid and thick you think the general public can be - it's possible for them to even stupider and thicker than you could ever imagine..
Can't say anymore because technically I shouldn't have seen it but oh boy.....
Think how stupid the average person can be - then remember that half of them are more stupid than that!
Yes, there should be a public information campaign - more people than you might think, don’t know that there’s a correlation between the thermostat setting on the central heating, and the size of the gas bill.
"Liz Truss and I are the same age, which feels weird enough, but this means we also studied for the same degree at the same university through the same part of the mid-90s - PPE (philosophy, politics and economics) at Oxford. We were at different colleges - I Balliol, she Merton - but would have attended the same lectures.
"Yet we’ve grown to have a good deal more in common than our dear old Alma Mater. I’m an amoral opportunist who’ll do anything for money, attention and power too, although even I would draw the line at destroying the entire country’s economy and currency, smashing apart the pensions and housing market, just to enrich and enchant my chums.
"I found I had a talent for stripping, porn and domination, and abandoned my plans to be respectable, pursuing instead easy money; she found there wasn’t enough opportunity to become an MP in a party as electorally unsuccessful as the Liberal Democrats, and promptly deserted that sinking ship; when she found her best hope of power was to go hard right and pro-Brexit, further right she jogged.
"I too always pretend to agree with the people who pay me; it’s good business sense. I wouldn’t dream, for example, of telling the bankers who pay me that they should be taxed more heavily, and apparently nor will she. But then, I’m not a public servant, with the futures of millions unravelling between my grasping, grubby little fingers.
"Might she be kinky too? The O necklace she wears has led several commentators to suggest she might be a collared submissive. It’s a readily recognised symbol in BDSM communities, first seen in Pauline Reage’s The Story of O, now worn by submissives to announce they are owned by dominants. She’s continued to wear the necklace long after the whispers went viral, and indeed, seems to possess a few in similar styles.
"I’d love to imagine our Prime Minister was an out and proud, sex positive member of the kink community. But that would take courage, integrity, creativity, honesty. Also, surely she’d be happier and more fulfilled, less likely to chase joy by destroying her citizens’ dreams.
"No: likely that O suggests her plans for sterling and the UK’s GDP, and she and I have only our age in common."
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
Does absolutely nobody on here think Truss has a point? This issue already has saturation coverage and there are other things they could spend the money on.
Because it only costs £15m.
Given the current popularity of the government, can you really see anyone taking a government information campaign seriously?
Yes. People said the same about Boris and lockdown advice.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
And for some reason, they seem to think that, if those regulations are swept away, I would be happy to waste my life running down each ingredient, inspecting each production facility, and checking the distribution networks before I eat a sandwich. Alternatively I could eat the darn thing and hope like hell that I do not spend my afternoon puking or recovering from botulism.
Truss & Co should kick Libertarianism into the long grass. It is quite clear that the public has little time for it.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
"X regulation is good" does not imply "all regulations are good".
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
"X regulation is good" does not imply "all regulations are good".
But this isn't even a regulation, it's just advice on how best to save power and at what times of day appliances should be used to minimise grid impact and avoid power cuts.
Does absolutely nobody on here think Truss has a point? This issue already has saturation coverage and there are other things they could spend the money on.
Because it only costs £15m.
Given the current popularity of the government, can you really see anyone taking a government information campaign seriously?
Yes. People said the same about Boris and lockdown advice.
Boris was still relatively popular at the start of lockdown.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
"X regulation is good" does not imply "all regulations are good".
But this isn't even a regulation, it's just advice on how best to save power and at what times of day appliances should be used to minimise grid impact and avoid power cuts.
Does absolutely nobody on here think Truss has a point? This issue already has saturation coverage and there are other things they could spend the money on.
Because it only costs £15m.
Given the current popularity of the government, can you really see anyone taking a government information campaign seriously?
The government is expected to spend £200bn on energy in the next couple of years.
If the campaign reduces usage by 0.01% it saves £20m vs £15m cost. If the campaign reduces usage by 0.5% it saves £985m If the campaign reduces usage by 3% it saves almost £6bn.
Plus environmental and continuity of supply benefits.
This is absolutely the best possible investment the UK can make for £15m and it is not even close.
The idea it would reduce usage by even 0.01% when we have nothing but wall-to-wall discussion of energy costs and what to do to mitigate it already seems extremely unlikely though.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
So, you'd remove all the rules around smoking, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD...?
Does absolutely nobody on here think Truss has a point? This issue already has saturation coverage and there are other things they could spend the money on.
Because it only costs £15m.
Given the current popularity of the government, can you really see anyone taking a government information campaign seriously?
The government is expected to spend £200bn on energy in the next couple of years.
If the campaign reduces usage by 0.01% it saves £20m vs £15m cost. If the campaign reduces usage by 0.5% it saves £985m If the campaign reduces usage by 3% it saves almost £6bn.
Plus environmental and continuity of supply benefits.
This is absolutely the best possible investment the UK can make for £15m and it is not even close.
The idea it would reduce usage by even 0.01% when we have nothing but wall-to-wall discussion of energy costs and what to do to mitigate it already seems extremely unlikely though.
The people designing it think they can save the average household £300.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
So, you'd remove all the rules around smoking, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD...?
That's not what I said.
I would have all those product legal, appropriate taxed, and offer education but let people make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Rules forbidding smoking inside etc fall under the "don't harm others" proviso. Getting 2 for 1 on chicken nuggets to put into your freezer does not.
Does absolutely nobody on here think Truss has a point? This issue already has saturation coverage and there are other things they could spend the money on.
Because it only costs £15m.
Given the current popularity of the government, can you really see anyone taking a government information campaign seriously?
The government is expected to spend £200bn on energy in the next couple of years.
If the campaign reduces usage by 0.01% it saves £20m vs £15m cost. If the campaign reduces usage by 0.5% it saves £985m If the campaign reduces usage by 3% it saves almost £6bn.
Plus environmental and continuity of supply benefits.
This is absolutely the best possible investment the UK can make for £15m and it is not even close.
The idea it would reduce usage by even 0.01% when we have nothing but wall-to-wall discussion of energy costs and what to do to mitigate it already seems extremely unlikely though.
The people designing it think they can save the average household £300.
Then they should put out that information themselves if so, the media is willing to cover anyone with such ideas at the moment anyway, no need for the state to do it, we have a free press.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
So, you'd remove all the rules around smoking, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD...?
That's not what I said.
I would have all those product legal, appropriate taxed, and offer education but let people make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Rules forbidding smoking inside etc fall under the "don't harm others" proviso. Getting 2 for 1 on chicken nuggets to put into your freezer does not.
If you would offer education on those products, what's wrong with education on energy usage?
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
So, you'd remove all the rules around smoking, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD...?
When I tick a box saying I'm NOT a robot I often wonder what Bartholomew Roberts does
Does absolutely nobody on here think Truss has a point? This issue already has saturation coverage and there are other things they could spend the money on.
Because it only costs £15m.
Given the current popularity of the government, can you really see anyone taking a government information campaign seriously?
The government is expected to spend £200bn on energy in the next couple of years.
If the campaign reduces usage by 0.01% it saves £20m vs £15m cost. If the campaign reduces usage by 0.5% it saves £985m If the campaign reduces usage by 3% it saves almost £6bn.
Plus environmental and continuity of supply benefits.
This is absolutely the best possible investment the UK can make for £15m and it is not even close.
The idea it would reduce usage by even 0.01% when we have nothing but wall-to-wall discussion of energy costs and what to do to mitigate it already seems extremely unlikely though.
Energy costs = emphasis on £££.
we have a number of people on PB who have commented that they have fixed deals of some age whereby their energy consumption is not particularly expensive - indeed, some are currently paying negligible sums. This will be true of many people more generally.
This does not, of course, reflect the other "costs"/ So a reminder that energy saving is in itself patriotic, Green, prudent, etc etc does no harm.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
So, you'd remove all the rules around smoking, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD...?
That's not what I said.
I would have all those product legal, appropriate taxed, and offer education but let people make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Rules forbidding smoking inside etc fall under the "don't harm others" proviso. Getting 2 for 1 on chicken nuggets to put into your freezer does not.
If you would offer education on those products, what's wrong with education on energy usage?
Nothings wrong with it.
I just think its completely redundant, given its all over the media and the number one topic of conversation for most people already. I think the Government would be better pressed dealing with other issues instead.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
"X regulation is good" does not imply "all regulations are good".
But this isn't even a regulation, it's just advice on how best to save power and at what times of day appliances should be used to minimise grid impact and avoid power cuts.
There's at least some evidence that a slightly more communitarian (as opposed to full on Barty) approach can work. The whole piece is worth a read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/09/electric-cars-help-california-electricity-grid/671420/ ...When the state last suffered such a widespread heat wave two years ago, its grid lapsed into rolling blackouts. But this time, the grid held fast. State officials have said that an emergency cellphone alert that asked residents to reduce their power usage helped save it. Within 45 minutes of the alert going out, the state had cut more than 2,000 megawatts of electricity, roughly as much energy as it normally takes to power more than 1.5 million homes. And the grid was fine....
Does absolutely nobody on here think Truss has a point? This issue already has saturation coverage and there are other things they could spend the money on.
Because it only costs £15m.
Given the current popularity of the government, can you really see anyone taking a government information campaign seriously?
The government is expected to spend £200bn on energy in the next couple of years.
If the campaign reduces usage by 0.01% it saves £20m vs £15m cost. If the campaign reduces usage by 0.5% it saves £985m If the campaign reduces usage by 3% it saves almost £6bn.
Plus environmental and continuity of supply benefits.
This is absolutely the best possible investment the UK can make for £15m and it is not even close.
The idea it would reduce usage by even 0.01% when we have nothing but wall-to-wall discussion of energy costs and what to do to mitigate it already seems extremely unlikely though.
The people designing it think they can save the average household £300.
Barty always knows better. Without actually producing evidence.
Does absolutely nobody on here think Truss has a point? This issue already has saturation coverage and there are other things they could spend the money on.
Because it only costs £15m.
Given the current popularity of the government, can you really see anyone taking a government information campaign seriously?
The government is expected to spend £200bn on energy in the next couple of years.
If the campaign reduces usage by 0.01% it saves £20m vs £15m cost. If the campaign reduces usage by 0.5% it saves £985m If the campaign reduces usage by 3% it saves almost £6bn.
Plus environmental and continuity of supply benefits.
This is absolutely the best possible investment the UK can make for £15m and it is not even close.
The idea it would reduce usage by even 0.01% when we have nothing but wall-to-wall discussion of energy costs and what to do to mitigate it already seems extremely unlikely though.
The people designing it think they can save the average household £300.
Then they should put out that information themselves if so, the media is willing to cover anyone with such ideas at the moment anyway, no need for the state to do it, we have a free press.
Free Press? I remember what the media were like when HIV/AIDS came on the scene. "Gay Plague" sort of stuff, heterosexuals don'tt need to worry etc. (in truth, reflecting the wishful thinking of certain newspaper editors).
The Conservative Government of the time - eventually - saw sense and moved to a factual information campaign. Just as well they did - it helped mitigate the developing disaster.
Mrs C and I are planning to invest in some hot water bottles. Simple and effective.
I remember trying to run the pharmacy during the three day week and the consequent blackouts; oil lamps and torches. What amazed me was that people still came in with their prescriptions with the place in darkness!
That's especially interesting as it's fully post-Liz speech. It does show a less devastating Labour lead. Note however that the tables show much greater Labour certainty to vote (92% in the 7-10 range, vs 68-73% for all the other parties) and this doesn't seem to be factored into the results. That could well change in an actual election, of course, but I think there are quite a few "oh, sod it, I won't bother" Tory voters out there.
Suck egg time for you Nick, compare between survey from same firm
I didn’t expect Techne to show a bigger lead. After Kantor Techne probably next in line for Tory vote holding up, Labour not high and smaller gap between parties. I gained this knowledge by looking at what the firm gives us over a long time.
So in its own way, if Techne L48, C26 and haemorrhaging, lead 22 is as devestating as yougove or peoplepolling saying 30% lead.
Likewise, if next Kantor shows smallest lead of all polls, C28 L45 - that in its own way is utterly devastating.
Up soon is monthly Mori, as a poll it tends to be Labour friendly, so a 52-24 feels about right from them.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
So, you'd remove all the rules around smoking, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD...?
That's not what I said.
I would have all those product legal, appropriate taxed, and offer education but let people make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Rules forbidding smoking inside etc fall under the "don't harm others" proviso. Getting 2 for 1 on chicken nuggets to put into your freezer does not.
Education = Public information campaign. Change the wording to "educating people on how to conserve power and what times of day to use energy intensive appliances" and you'd be good with it?
All that toadying makes sense. I hope it's worth being associated to this rabble of the government for him. Aaron has definitely take a hit to his reputation over the last few weeks.
Given the shower of shit in team Truss, it's a questionable choice.
I can see the logic. It's reasonably easy to surmise that there's a pretty high chance of losing his seat at the next election. Given that most people go into politics in order to try and 'do good' in some way - if he sees that he has a limited amount of time left what can he most helpfully do - perhaps making small but important changes in the MoJ to improve things is better than criticizing from the outside to no real effect..
Pretty nailed on that he will be back as a bookie at the next GE. Battered but wiser.
It is going to be quire hard to sell Truss's plan for growth in the Potteries.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
And for some reason, they seem to think that, if those regulations are swept away, I would be happy to waste my life running down each ingredient, inspecting each production facility, and checking the distribution networks before I eat a sandwich. Alternatively I could eat the darn thing and hope like hell that I do not spend my afternoon puking or recovering from botulism.
Truss & Co should kick Libertarianism into the long grass. It is quite clear that the public has little time for it.
Anyone familiar with Victorian social and economic history, and the relentlessness with which businessmen fought the merest notion that they shouldn't be free to poison their customers while selling them what was most definitely not on the label, will have absolutely no confidence in this attempt to revive the good old days,.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
"X regulation is good" does not imply "all regulations are good".
But this isn't even a regulation, it's just advice on how best to save power and at what times of day appliances should be used to minimise grid impact and avoid power cuts.
There's at least some evidence that a slightly more communitarian (as opposed to full on Barty) approach can work. The whole piece is worth a read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/09/electric-cars-help-california-electricity-grid/671420/ ...When the state last suffered such a widespread heat wave two years ago, its grid lapsed into rolling blackouts. But this time, the grid held fast. State officials have said that an emergency cellphone alert that asked residents to reduce their power usage helped save it. Within 45 minutes of the alert going out, the state had cut more than 2,000 megawatts of electricity, roughly as much energy as it normally takes to power more than 1.5 million homes. And the grid was fine....
It's such an easy thing to do, ask people to turn off their AC for 30 mins and we avoid a catastrophe.
Quite. Cutting oil production when there is already a somewhat artificial cut because of Russian sanctions and the world economy is teetering on the edge of recession was decidedly unhelpful and a real slap in the face for Biden who had asked them to increase production.
Once again, however, it is Europe that bears the brunt of this as the US returns to self sufficiency on the back of higher prices. And yet there are still some people complaining that squeezing the last out of the north sea is not compatible with our green priorities: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63149957
By doing this, OPEC are bringing forward the cross over point where the US become independent of them on oil. Again.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
So, you'd remove all the rules around smoking, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD...?
That's not what I said.
I would have all those product legal, appropriate taxed, and offer education but let people make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Rules forbidding smoking inside etc fall under the "don't harm others" proviso. Getting 2 for 1 on chicken nuggets to put into your freezer does not.
Education = Public information campaign. Change the wording to "educating people on how to conserve power and what times of day to use energy intensive appliances" and you'd be good with it?
I have no philosophical objection to an education campaign, no.
I don't think its necessary today since everyone I know is doing everything they can to do this already anyway, and the media are talking about it all the time too. And if anyone has any energy saving tips, they're already sharing them.
If the Government were to do this, I'd be OK with it, as I have no objection to education. If the Government don't do this, I'd be OK with it, as I don't think its necessary. I'm OK with it either way.
As long as its education and not compulsion, then its fine.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
I think there is an aversion to the state telling you how to behave at play. I keep seeing posters suggest that the cost pressure has been removed from energy costs this winter. This is simply not true - its been heavily mitigated for sure, but most folk are seeing energy bills go up. At the same time the media is all over this with 'how reduce your bills' stories. Thats what the people pay attention too - Phil and Holly, or the One Show, not government broadcasts.
People will be taking action to save money this winter and this will help reduce consumption, all without the state having to do anything.
I think we need to look at this just as we did the first lockdown. Clear and consistent messaging from the government will help keep the lights on this winter (and probably the following two). Hoping that enough people act voluntarily without proper advice or from non official advice will result in rolling blackouts and interruptions in gas supply for households.
The downside to doing nothing is potentially very large and the upside is non-existent. Liz Truss is putting the nation at risk for some idiotic ideology. Even I supported the first lockdown, just because there were so many unknowns. This is similar, except we know that normal usage by households and industry will result in blackouts. Even basic advice in when in the day or night to run dishwashers and washing machines or how to save electricity when using the oven (tip - don't use the fan assist, put the temperature up by 10 degrees vs the instructions and cut the cooking time a bit). These are basic information that loads of people just don't know, giving people the tools to help themselves and the nation is a win/win.
I already felt that there is no need for the Government to be getting involved given that the media and the public is wall-to-wall talking about all this already.
But any comparisons with Lockdown absolutely reinforce the notion that the Government should not get involved. Lockdown was an awful accumulation of power by the state that was hard to roll back on and anything like that again is to absolutely be avoided. Getting away from the idea that the state is the answer to all life's problems is important.
Quite frankly, the public and media are full of little else but this already. Everyone I know is rationally doing what they can anyway. That is what we need, rational communication and people sensibly doing sensible things, let experts talk and communicate good ideas, no need for the state to be doing it.
"Lockdown was an awful accumulation of power by the state that was hard to roll back on" is a weird description of something that was a very targeted intervention in response to an extremely unusual situation, and which ended very promptly. It wasn't at all difficult to roll back on. We had lockdowns: they ended. They generally ended sooner than public opinion wanted them to!
If you were talking about China, you might have a point. But this is not China.
Lockdown continued for far, far too long.
The most vulnerable were vaccinated by Valentine's Day, the vulnerable were vaccinated by the end of March, yet lockdown continued until July.
It was pathetic, and never again is my view.
Only if you mean by Lockdown "any restrictions at all". The rules were progressively relaxed as 2021 went on.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
"X regulation is good" does not imply "all regulations are good".
But this isn't even a regulation, it's just advice on how best to save power and at what times of day appliances should be used to minimise grid impact and avoid power cuts.
There's at least some evidence that a slightly more communitarian (as opposed to full on Barty) approach can work. The whole piece is worth a read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/09/electric-cars-help-california-electricity-grid/671420/ ...When the state last suffered such a widespread heat wave two years ago, its grid lapsed into rolling blackouts. But this time, the grid held fast. State officials have said that an emergency cellphone alert that asked residents to reduce their power usage helped save it. Within 45 minutes of the alert going out, the state had cut more than 2,000 megawatts of electricity, roughly as much energy as it normally takes to power more than 1.5 million homes. And the grid was fine....
It's such an easy thing to do, ask people to turn off their AC for 30 mins and we avoid a catastrophe.
Electricity consumption in the UK is very low to start with though, noone has an easily turn offable appliance such as AC that can be turned off here to save energy.
German import prices up YoY by 33%, that's the worst rise since this index started.
I think the age of European heavy industry is coming to an end and people aren't awake to it yet. Cheap energy and outsourcing national defence has driven the German economy for 30 years since reunification, neither are on the horizon now.
We think our politicians fucked up energy investment for the last 20 years, yet it's not nearly as bad as Germany. Worse is that Germany relies far more on heavy industry than the UK, the threat out power outages means offices are shut here but people can wfh, power outages there means days of production equipment sitting idle and huge losses in national output.
I fear that the continent hasn't yet woken up to what the end of the cheap energy age really means, neither has the UK, yet we're not as exposed due to our already small manufacturing sector.
Good morning
Germany is in a very poor place and Merkel's legacy is turning out to be a disaster for Germany with her idiotic decisions on nuclear power and her closeness to Russia
In other news the one pleasing report this morning is that Truss and Macron got on very well with agreement to move forward together on energy security and the channel crossings and other related matters
It is also expected a deal between the UK and EU re Northern Ireland is near and that too would be welcome
The latest controversy to hit the German government is about agreeing to supply more weapons to Saudi Arabia following Scholz's visit. OPEC going on to cut energy supplies must be a bit of a kick in the teeth.
The last 12 months should have finally lifted the scales from many eyes, though I expect that may take a while. The resource exporters hold Europe in a form of usury that it desperately needs to break out of.
There is a wonderful future of energy security and cheap power on offer once we have fully decarbonised our European energy mix, or at least to the extent of no longer relying on authoritarian states to supply us. We just need to get on with the transition as a matter of urgency.
Every time Putin tries geopolitical blackmail or the OPEC cartel make opportunistic decisions like this week, they put another nail in their coffin as petro-states and drive the rest of the world towards independence.
I have always said that, even without Global Warming, getting off oil and gas was worth the money.
I recall a One Worlder type who was horrified when i pointed out the benefit of not sending rivers of cash to OPEC - “but that means the West wins. There should be support for the oil producing countries!”
All that toadying makes sense. I hope it's worth being associated to this rabble of the government for him. Aaron has definitely take a hit to his reputation over the last few weeks.
Given the shower of shit in team Truss, it's a questionable choice.
I can see the logic. It's reasonably easy to surmise that there's a pretty high chance of losing his seat at the next election. Given that most people go into politics in order to try and 'do good' in some way - if he sees that he has a limited amount of time left what can he most helpfully do - perhaps making small but important changes in the MoJ to improve things is better than criticizing from the outside to no real effect..
Pretty nailed on that he will be back as a bookie at the next GE. Battered but wiser.
It is going to be quire hard to sell Truss's plan for growth in the Potteries.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
"X regulation is good" does not imply "all regulations are good".
But this isn't even a regulation, it's just advice on how best to save power and at what times of day appliances should be used to minimise grid impact and avoid power cuts.
There's at least some evidence that a slightly more communitarian (as opposed to full on Barty) approach can work. The whole piece is worth a read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/09/electric-cars-help-california-electricity-grid/671420/ ...When the state last suffered such a widespread heat wave two years ago, its grid lapsed into rolling blackouts. But this time, the grid held fast. State officials have said that an emergency cellphone alert that asked residents to reduce their power usage helped save it. Within 45 minutes of the alert going out, the state had cut more than 2,000 megawatts of electricity, roughly as much energy as it normally takes to power more than 1.5 million homes. And the grid was fine....
It's such an easy thing to do, ask people to turn off their AC for 30 mins and we avoid a catastrophe.
Electricity consumption in the UK is very low to start with though, noone has an easily turn offable appliance such as AC that can be turned off here to save energy.
I shouldn't think anyone will be running AC in England in midwinter, except perhaps in specialist places like operating theatres etc.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
So, you'd remove all the rules around smoking, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD...?
That's not what I said.
I would have all those product legal, appropriate taxed, and offer education but let people make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Rules forbidding smoking inside etc fall under the "don't harm others" proviso. Getting 2 for 1 on chicken nuggets to put into your freezer does not.
Education = Public information campaign. Change the wording to "educating people on how to conserve power and what times of day to use energy intensive appliances" and you'd be good with it?
I have no philosophical objection to an education campaign, no.
I don't think its necessary today since everyone I know is doing everything they can to do this already anyway, and the media are talking about it all the time too. And if anyone has any energy saving tips, they're already sharing them.
If the Government were to do this, I'd be OK with it, as I have no objection to education. If the Government don't do this, I'd be OK with it, as I don't think its necessary. I'm OK with it either way.
As long as its education and not compulsion, then its fine.
But the other information out there isn't going to actually be very helpful to avoid peak power usage. That's where the government can actually help because the TV an other advice is all about saving money, the government advice is separate in that it's about helping the nation avoid rolling blackouts. putting the dishwasher on at 11pm instead of 8pm after dinner is an easy one, for example. It won't save any money but it may be the difference between a 2h power cut that evening and not.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
"X regulation is good" does not imply "all regulations are good".
But this isn't even a regulation, it's just advice on how best to save power and at what times of day appliances should be used to minimise grid impact and avoid power cuts.
That was a reference to HFSS nanny statism.
Exactly. Is this an example of Nanny State, or example of good government, an example why we actually have have government in first place if not to nudge and nurdle?
From PM down the whole current government are wrong headed, on what is good government and what is Nanny State.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
"X regulation is good" does not imply "all regulations are good".
But this isn't even a regulation, it's just advice on how best to save power and at what times of day appliances should be used to minimise grid impact and avoid power cuts.
There's at least some evidence that a slightly more communitarian (as opposed to full on Barty) approach can work. The whole piece is worth a read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/09/electric-cars-help-california-electricity-grid/671420/ ...When the state last suffered such a widespread heat wave two years ago, its grid lapsed into rolling blackouts. But this time, the grid held fast. State officials have said that an emergency cellphone alert that asked residents to reduce their power usage helped save it. Within 45 minutes of the alert going out, the state had cut more than 2,000 megawatts of electricity, roughly as much energy as it normally takes to power more than 1.5 million homes. And the grid was fine....
It's such an easy thing to do, ask people to turn off their AC for 30 mins and we avoid a catastrophe.
Demand spikes are quite a big part of blackouts - most of the time there's sufficient generation. Until we have a full smart grid (including the user side of things), then it's impossible for individual choices to make much difference without some sort of central intervention.
I've no problem with libertarian principles, if they are taken alongside other principles of equal importance - and those of greater importance (notably, the dictates of common sense).
I'm not sure recommending Macron because of his 'elegance' is sensible, but each to his own. I know my own limitations - many don't.
Elegance is the wrong word. I was going to use 'class' but that would be misinterpreted. The English language often falls short. A Spanish friend told me they have about twenty words to describe a type of woman whereas English has none
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
"X regulation is good" does not imply "all regulations are good".
But this isn't even a regulation, it's just advice on how best to save power and at what times of day appliances should be used to minimise grid impact and avoid power cuts.
There's at least some evidence that a slightly more communitarian (as opposed to full on Barty) approach can work. The whole piece is worth a read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/09/electric-cars-help-california-electricity-grid/671420/ ...When the state last suffered such a widespread heat wave two years ago, its grid lapsed into rolling blackouts. But this time, the grid held fast. State officials have said that an emergency cellphone alert that asked residents to reduce their power usage helped save it. Within 45 minutes of the alert going out, the state had cut more than 2,000 megawatts of electricity, roughly as much energy as it normally takes to power more than 1.5 million homes. And the grid was fine....
It's such an easy thing to do, ask people to turn off their AC for 30 mins and we avoid a catastrophe.
Electricity consumption in the UK is very low to start with though, noone has an easily turn offable appliance such as AC that can be turned off here to save energy.
No doubt, but there is avoiding action such as the example I just gave, or general power usage reductions that make no difference to people's daily living. The Xbox example is a great one - the default power saving still uses ~30W but they also have an eco mode which uses 2W that needs to be set. A government mandated regulation to make Microsoft push an update that forces all Xboxen in the UK into eco mode makes sense to me. Same as the old Sky+ boxes, they have three varieties of power saving, the most commonly used one keeps the box basically on all the time and costs households almost a £100 per year to run, even the newer Sky Q boxes have a variety of power saving modes with the least efficient costing households £40 vs £2 for the most efficient.
There's so many easy savings out there for the state if they want to find them. Just shifting all of the Xboxen in the country to eco mode is something mad like an 18MW reduction in grid usage.
If your over confidence and hubris leads to it not happening, it’s naughty step for you Horse, naughty step for a long time.
Instead of feeling elated and excited and triumphant, you should be fearing what Truss is about to do to Welfare State and public funding and workers rights in order to balance the books as being loudly signalled to the markets.
At same time Labour need to deliver on the nations problems in five years or the polls could switch and losing in 2029 could be 1979 all over again.
Having just been shown something by Twin A - can I just say no matter how stupid and thick you think the general public can be - it's possible for them to even stupider and thicker than you could ever imagine..
Can't say anymore because technically I shouldn't have seen it but oh boy.....
Think how stupid the average person can be - then remember that half of them are more stupid than that!
Yes, there should be a public information campaign - more people than you might think, don’t know that there’s a correlation between the thermostat setting on the central heating, and the size of the gas bill.
The arguments against the campaign presume that (a) all or nearly all adults in the UK are actively engaged in consuming and understanding a major media discussion, and (b) that the media in which the discussion is playing out is providing consistent, easy to understand and reliable information.
(a) is a classic fallacy. Great swathes of people will at best be dimly aware that costs are increasing, but won't know/care about the context, or be actively consuming news media or social media in a way that increases the salience of the issue in their lives. Wall-to-wall coverage it may be - but even so, that doesn't mean it reaches everyone by any means.
(b) pretty easy to show that this is not true; there will be conflicting advice and a plethora of unreliable sources.
A big advertising campaign won't necessarily reach everyone either, but it will certainly get the message across to a lot more people than simply relying on media and the 'national conversation' - and in a pithier and more effective way.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
So, you'd remove all the rules around smoking, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD...?
That's not what I said.
I would have all those product legal, appropriate taxed, and offer education but let people make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Rules forbidding smoking inside etc fall under the "don't harm others" proviso. Getting 2 for 1 on chicken nuggets to put into your freezer does not.
Education = Public information campaign. Change the wording to "educating people on how to conserve power and what times of day to use energy intensive appliances" and you'd be good with it?
I have no philosophical objection to an education campaign, no.
I don't think its necessary today since everyone I know is doing everything they can to do this already anyway, and the media are talking about it all the time too. And if anyone has any energy saving tips, they're already sharing them.
If the Government were to do this, I'd be OK with it, as I have no objection to education. If the Government don't do this, I'd be OK with it, as I don't think its necessary. I'm OK with it either way.
As long as its education and not compulsion, then its fine.
But the other information out there isn't going to actually be very helpful to avoid peak power usage. That's where the government can actually help because the TV an other advice is all about saving money, the government advice is separate in that it's about helping the nation avoid rolling blackouts. putting the dishwasher on at 11pm instead of 8pm after dinner is an easy one, for example. It won't save any money but it may be the difference between a 2h power cut that evening and not.
Putting on energy intensive machines in off-peak hours is a message I've heard repeatedly.
I have an app for my washer dryer which has a prompt on the app that to save money use after 10pm.
Anyway it's not a big deal for me either way. Education is something the Government can do and should if its necessary (eg HIV/AIDS as mentioned). If it is necessary here then go ahead, I just don't see it.
Maybe I have more faith in people to be sensible than I should.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
So, you'd remove all the rules around smoking, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD...?
That's not what I said.
I would have all those product legal, appropriate taxed, and offer education but let people make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Rules forbidding smoking inside etc fall under the "don't harm others" proviso. Getting 2 for 1 on chicken nuggets to put into your freezer does not.
Education = Public information campaign. Change the wording to "educating people on how to conserve power and what times of day to use energy intensive appliances" and you'd be good with it?
I have no philosophical objection to an education campaign, no.
I don't think its necessary today since everyone I know is doing everything they can to do this already anyway, and the media are talking about it all the time too. And if anyone has any energy saving tips, they're already sharing them.
If the Government were to do this, I'd be OK with it, as I have no objection to education. If the Government don't do this, I'd be OK with it, as I don't think its necessary. I'm OK with it either way.
As long as its education and not compulsion, then its fine.
Compulsion = Power Cut
That's what we are trying to avoid.
Yes, people are reducing overall consumption, but people will not be load shifting from peak to off peak demand periods. That's where public education is required: Don't do your ironing at 6pm!
If your over confidence and hubris leads to it not happening, it’s naughty step for you Horse, naughty step for a long time.
Instead of feeling elated and excited and triumphant, you should be fearing what Truss is about to do to Welfare State and public funding and workers rights in order to balance the books as being loudly signalled to the markets.
At same time Labour need to deliver on the nations problems in five years or the polls could switch and losing in 2029 could be 1979 all over again.
Edit. I think this is closest IOS has to granny’s finger wagging emoji 🫵🏻
Any sensible preparations for winter power cuts ahead? Buying a couple of decent usb torches and a usb reading light. A chance to catch up on some reading.
What about power back ups for PCs? Seems they don't last very long and guess home wifi wont work either so benefit would be safely closing down rather than keeping it online?
Anything I can do for fridge/freezer?
Blankets and jumpers.
Torch for reading light.
Portable camping gas stove and a stove kettle - most regular gas cookers won’t run with no power, they have a safety cutout.
For a desktop PC, get a UPS.
You can get a device called an inverter, that will turn your car engine into a generator and give 240v. It’ll be enough to run the PC, wifi router, and chargers for phones, laptops, torches etc https://www.amazon.co.uk/LVYUAN-Inverter-Converter-Cigarette-Lighter/dp/B08PS1LKCP/ Don’t run the inverter without the engine running (it will kill the battery in minutes!), make sure your car can’t be stolen if left with the engine running, and don’t run out of petrol!
Fridge/freezer not much, but a modern one will keep cold for a couple of days if you don’t open it. You could run it from the inverter for a bit, if nothing else is plugged in.
Get a generator if you really need power for more than just emergencies, it’s more efficient than using the car!
The cigarette lighter in a car is usually on a 10A fuse so 120W before any losses in the inverter. Useless.
If you're going to do it you need something like a 1000W inverter than can draw 100A+ (they are usually fused at 150-200A) from the battery.
Yes, if you’re gonna plug your fridge in, use the battery cables provided and not the cigarette lighter, and don’t leave it running long.
They are good for laptops and routers though, which is what you might need in an emergency,
Hyundai Ioniq does 3.6kW V2L. That's what you really want!
I have Nissan Leaf which is theoretically capable of powering our home for a couple of days from a full charge, but the reversible charger required to do so seems to be either prohibitively expensive or unavailable, depending where I look. Granted, it has to be a pretty complex bit of kit to handle switching cleanly between mains and car power.
It's the other end of the cable that is the problem, though, as Sandpit and Phil have pointed out. Nissan Leafs have always had V2H capability, but actually utilising it isn't easy.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
So, you'd remove all the rules around smoking, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD...?
That's not what I said.
I would have all those product legal, appropriate taxed, and offer education but let people make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Rules forbidding smoking inside etc fall under the "don't harm others" proviso. Getting 2 for 1 on chicken nuggets to put into your freezer does not.
Education = Public information campaign. Change the wording to "educating people on how to conserve power and what times of day to use energy intensive appliances" and you'd be good with it?
I have no philosophical objection to an education campaign, no.
I don't think its necessary today since everyone I know is doing everything they can to do this already anyway, and the media are talking about it all the time too. And if anyone has any energy saving tips, they're already sharing them.
If the Government were to do this, I'd be OK with it, as I have no objection to education. If the Government don't do this, I'd be OK with it, as I don't think its necessary. I'm OK with it either way.
As long as its education and not compulsion, then its fine.
But the other information out there isn't going to actually be very helpful to avoid peak power usage. That's where the government can actually help because the TV an other advice is all about saving money, the government advice is separate in that it's about helping the nation avoid rolling blackouts. putting the dishwasher on at 11pm instead of 8pm after dinner is an easy one, for example. It won't save any money but it may be the difference between a 2h power cut that evening and not.
Putting on energy intensive machines in off-peak hours is a message I've heard repeatedly.
I have an app for my washer dryer which has a prompt on the app that to save money use after 10pm.
Anyway it's not a big deal for me either way. Education is something the Government can do and should if its necessary (eg HIV/AIDS as mentioned). If it is necessary here then go ahead, I just don't see it.
Maybe I have more faith in people to be sensible than I should.
You may realise that, but your average Sun, Mirror and Daily Mail reader doesn't. When your area has a power cut in the evening because people are collectively turning on the TV after dinner with their dishwashers running and all of the lights on with their heating going you may want to think of this moment where a government campaign to ask people to not put their dishwashers on until 11pm would probably have prevented the blackout.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
Do less is usually right wing code for cutting universal credit.
Usually, yes, but in this instance the "less" that Kinabalu is worried Truss doesn't want to do is not UC but is 2 for 1 deals instead.
If the fact that the PM isn't getting involved in 2 for 1 deals is your biggest concern, then maybe the PM actually has the right priorities?
I sort of agree with you, and Truss, that there are bigger fish to fry than 2 for 1 deals at the moment.
Which makes it all the more surprising that Truss chose to mention it in her keynote conference speech, doesn't it? Why did she do that when there's much more important stuff to talk about?
I have to say, even though I'm a fairly regular critic of the EU, their push 6-8 years ago on standby power usage for appliances looks like a fucking genius idea. Imagine if every single PS4, PS5, Sky box, Xbox, DVD player, TV etc... were still without the ultra low power standby modes that have since been built into circuitry and software? Pre 2012 TVs, for example, have standby power usage of 60-80W, the PS3 had standby usage of ~20W before the software update to make it compliant, the PS4 ~10W, Xboxen were pretty bad culprits. We'd have legitimately tens of millions of home devices pushing up peak grid usage by small but very significant amounts leaving us with very, very little spare capacity.
If your over confidence and hubris leads to it not happening, it’s naughty step for you Horse, naughty step for a long time.
Instead of feeling elated and excited and triumphant, you should be fearing what Truss is about to do to Welfare State and public funding and workers rights in order to balance the books as being loudly signalled to the markets.
At same time Labour need to deliver on the nations problems in five years or the polls could switch and losing in 2029 could be 1979 all over again.
Again, it was a JOKE - TONGUE IN CHEEK. Goodness me I need to start using emojis clearly. My bad.
At leas you're not pretending anymore to not be a Tory. Welcome.
Here's one, colleague purchased a car on 0% at Nov-21. Car not been delivered yet, now the seller is saying they want to put the price up and not do it at 0%. Seems outrageous, can they do that ?
Sorry who the fuck uses double spaces after a fullstop.
It was the convention with manual typewriters. I think in the early days it distinguished macs from windows, but detailss escape me. Hope that helps.
ETA I typed that with double spaces and vanilla automatically trimmed one of them before posting it. There are 5 spaces there, wonder how many will survive?
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
This is a genuinely stupid argument and you should be ashamed. What you are saying, quite blatantly, is that because we have good and useful government regulation we should also accept all the bad, stupid and unnecessary regulation as well.
There is a world of difference between stopping someone poisoning us and forcing us down a particular route that happens to suit the current health fad. Maybe you missed the fact that for decades Governments were complicit in pushing the line that the primary cause of obesity and ill health was fat when much of the evidence now is that it was refined and processed carbs.
If the Government decided that alcohol was bad for us and so should be banned would you support that? Or would you consider it an infringement of your rights and a Nanny state. Because that is the natural progression of your argument. And if you forget it was tried once before and failed very badly.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
It wasn't a policy declaration on 2 for 1 deals. It was a statement of sympathy and alignment with a particular mindset. The idea that the government should not - neither by decree nor by nudge - try and encourage people to behave in ways deemed beneficial to themselves and wider society (in this case be less fat and unhealthy).
Indeed, it shouldn't.
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
So, you'd remove all the rules around smoking, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD...?
That's not what I said.
I would have all those product legal, appropriate taxed, and offer education but let people make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Rules forbidding smoking inside etc fall under the "don't harm others" proviso. Getting 2 for 1 on chicken nuggets to put into your freezer does not.
Education = Public information campaign. Change the wording to "educating people on how to conserve power and what times of day to use energy intensive appliances" and you'd be good with it?
I have no philosophical objection to an education campaign, no.
I don't think its necessary today since everyone I know is doing everything they can to do this already anyway, and the media are talking about it all the time too. And if anyone has any energy saving tips, they're already sharing them.
If the Government were to do this, I'd be OK with it, as I have no objection to education. If the Government don't do this, I'd be OK with it, as I don't think its necessary. I'm OK with it either way.
As long as its education and not compulsion, then its fine.
But the other information out there isn't going to actually be very helpful to avoid peak power usage. That's where the government can actually help because the TV an other advice is all about saving money, the government advice is separate in that it's about helping the nation avoid rolling blackouts. putting the dishwasher on at 11pm instead of 8pm after dinner is an easy one, for example. It won't save any money but it may be the difference between a 2h power cut that evening and not.
Putting on energy intensive machines in off-peak hours is a message I've heard repeatedly.
I have an app for my washer dryer which has a prompt on the app that to save money use after 10pm.
Anyway it's not a big deal for me either way. Education is something the Government can do and should if its necessary (eg HIV/AIDS as mentioned). If it is necessary here then go ahead, I just don't see it.
Maybe I have more faith in people to be sensible than I should.
But it isn't a case of "if it is necessary here then go ahead", because the person running the country like you doesn't see it and is blocking any steps at all that would help the country reduce and better manage energy consumption.
The UK government is doing diddly squat. Compare and contrast with the active approach taken in Germany.
Here's one, colleague purchased a car on 0% at Nov-21. Car not been delivered yet, now the seller is saying they want to put the price up and not do it at 0%. Seems outrageous, can they do that ?
Not unless the contract says they can possibly not even then if a consumer contract.
Having just been shown something by Twin A - can I just say no matter how stupid and thick you think the general public can be - it's possible for them to even stupider and thicker than you could ever imagine..
Can't say anymore because technically I shouldn't have seen it but oh boy.....
Think how stupid the average person can be - then remember that half of them are more stupid than that!
Yes, there should be a public information campaign - more people than you might think, don’t know that there’s a correlation between the thermostat setting on the central heating, and the size of the gas bill.
The arguments against the campaign presume that (a) all or nearly all adults in the UK are actively engaged in consuming and understanding a major media discussion, and (b) that the media in which the discussion is playing out is providing consistent, easy to understand and reliable information.
(a) is a classic fallacy. Great swathes of people will at best be dimly aware that costs are increasing, but won't know/care about the context, or be actively consuming news media or social media in a way that increases the salience of the issue in their lives. Wall-to-wall coverage it may be - but even so, that doesn't mean it reaches everyone by any means.
(b) pretty easy to show that this is not true; there will be conflicting advice and a plethora of unreliable sources.
A big advertising campaign won't necessarily reach everyone either, but it will certainly get the message across to a lot more people than simply relying on media and the 'national conversation' - and in a pithier and more effective way.
Would have been effective if everyone hadn't (quite understandably) spent the last two weeks turning the PM into a figure of ridicule.
Here's one, colleague purchased a car on 0% at Nov-21. Car not been delivered yet, now the seller is saying they want to put the price up and not do it at 0%. Seems outrageous, can they do that ?
Not unless the contract says they can possibly not even then if a consumer contract.
Incredibly unlikely - assuming some deposit was paid and taken because finance deals make it incredibly difficult to back out.
Back in 2016 - VW leasing managed to screw up the price of a particular top of the range Passat so that the lease cost was £120 a month rather than £500.
Everyone who got the finance through received the car (with VW making a production run of 1000 identical models) because VW couldn't see a way of extracting themselves from the offered contracts.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
This is a genuinely stupid argument and you should be ashamed. What you are saying, quite blatantly, is that because we have good and useful government regulation we should also accept all the bad, stupid and unnecessary regulation as well.
There is a world of difference between stopping someone poisoning us and forcing us down a particular route that happens to suit the current health fad. Maybe you missed the fact that for decades Governments were complicit in pushing the line that the primary cause of obesity and ill health was fat when much of the evidence now is that it was refined and processed carbs.
If the Government decided that alcohol was bad for us and so should be banned would you support that? Or would you consider it an infringement of your rights and a Nanny state. Because that is the natural progression of your argument. And if you forget it was tried once before and failed very badly.
Your first paragraph is surprisingly harsh, from you, and somewhat unfair. You are imputing something to the poster that s/he really didn't say at all.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
"X regulation is good" does not imply "all regulations are good".
But this isn't even a regulation, it's just advice on how best to save power and at what times of day appliances should be used to minimise grid impact and avoid power cuts.
There's at least some evidence that a slightly more communitarian (as opposed to full on Barty) approach can work. The whole piece is worth a read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/09/electric-cars-help-california-electricity-grid/671420/ ...When the state last suffered such a widespread heat wave two years ago, its grid lapsed into rolling blackouts. But this time, the grid held fast. State officials have said that an emergency cellphone alert that asked residents to reduce their power usage helped save it. Within 45 minutes of the alert going out, the state had cut more than 2,000 megawatts of electricity, roughly as much energy as it normally takes to power more than 1.5 million homes. And the grid was fine....
It's such an easy thing to do, ask people to turn off their AC for 30 mins and we avoid a catastrophe.
Electricity consumption in the UK is very low to start with though, noone has an easily turn offable appliance such as AC that can be turned off here to save energy.
No doubt, but there is avoiding action such as the example I just gave, or general power usage reductions that make no difference to people's daily living. The Xbox example is a great one - the default power saving still uses ~30W but they also have an eco mode which uses 2W that needs to be set. A government mandated regulation to make Microsoft push an update that forces all Xboxen in the UK into eco mode makes sense to me. Same as the old Sky+ boxes, they have three varieties of power saving, the most commonly used one keeps the box basically on all the time and costs households almost a £100 per year to run, even the newer Sky Q boxes have a variety of power saving modes with the least efficient costing households £40 vs £2 for the most efficient.
There's so many easy savings out there for the state if they want to find them. Just shifting all of the Xboxen in the country to eco mode is something mad like an 18MW reduction in grid usage.
Unfortunately power savings mode can be very dumb sometimes. I've deactivated power saving on our Sky Q box as it was switching off at 2am even if I was watching something on the Mini box in my bedroom, meaning the Mini box wouldn't work. I'd have to go downstairs to switch it back on.
If the Mini box woke up the main Q box when in use (or pregented it turning off) then it wouldn't be a problem.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
This is a genuinely stupid argument and you should be ashamed. What you are saying, quite blatantly, is that because we have good and useful government regulation we should also accept all the bad, stupid and unnecessary regulation as well.
There is a world of difference between stopping someone poisoning us and forcing us down a particular route that happens to suit the current health fad. Maybe you missed the fact that for decades Governments were complicit in pushing the line that the primary cause of obesity and ill health was fat when much of the evidence now is that it was refined and processed carbs.
If the Government decided that alcohol was bad for us and so should be banned would you support that? Or would you consider it an infringement of your rights and a Nanny state. Because that is the natural progression of your argument. And if you forget it was tried once before and failed very badly.
Your first paragraph is surprisingly harsh, from you, and somewhat unfair. You are imputing something to the poster that s/he really didn't say at all.
Nope that is exactly what the post says that I objected to.
"Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does."
So we are not allowed to differentiate between good and bad government action?
Sorry who the fuck uses double spaces after a fullstop.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, according to his ministerial style guide.
It comes from the era of typewriters, using double spaces to mimic wider spacing at the end of a sentence, so of course that bellend would be advocating it in 2022. Back on planet Earth where we all use computers this can be done automatically and correctly without any need to type a second space.
And if you really, really care about this sort of thing you are probably using TeX anyway.
Having just been shown something by Twin A - can I just say no matter how stupid and thick you think the general public can be - it's possible for them to even stupider and thicker than you could ever imagine..
Can't say anymore because technically I shouldn't have seen it but oh boy.....
Think how stupid the average person can be - then remember that half of them are more stupid than that!
Yes, there should be a public information campaign - more people than you might think, don’t know that there’s a correlation between the thermostat setting on the central heating, and the size of the gas bill.
The arguments against the campaign presume that (a) all or nearly all adults in the UK are actively engaged in consuming and understanding a major media discussion, and (b) that the media in which the discussion is playing out is providing consistent, easy to understand and reliable information.
(a) is a classic fallacy. Great swathes of people will at best be dimly aware that costs are increasing, but won't know/care about the context, or be actively consuming news media or social media in a way that increases the salience of the issue in their lives. Wall-to-wall coverage it may be - but even so, that doesn't mean it reaches everyone by any means.
(b) pretty easy to show that this is not true; there will be conflicting advice and a plethora of unreliable sources.
A big advertising campaign won't necessarily reach everyone either, but it will certainly get the message across to a lot more people than simply relying on media and the 'national conversation' - and in a pithier and more effective way.
Quite. There's a mountain of evidence that putting downbeat messages on fag packets reduces smoking even when 100% of people know that smoking is really really bad for you.
Mr. Battery, it's a bit old school but some people do still use double spaces after a full stop.
One thing that annoys me about modern stuff is when 'suggestions' are wrong but many will blindly follow them. I've had gaol flagged as a typo before. It is not.
Having just been shown something by Twin A - can I just say no matter how stupid and thick you think the general public can be - it's possible for them to even stupider and thicker than you could ever imagine..
Can't say anymore because technically I shouldn't have seen it but oh boy.....
Think how stupid the average person can be - then remember that half of them are more stupid than that!
Yes, there should be a public information campaign - more people than you might think, don’t know that there’s a correlation between the thermostat setting on the central heating, and the size of the gas bill.
The arguments against the campaign presume that (a) all or nearly all adults in the UK are actively engaged in consuming and understanding a major media discussion, and (b) that the media in which the discussion is playing out is providing consistent, easy to understand and reliable information.
(a) is a classic fallacy. Great swathes of people will at best be dimly aware that costs are increasing, but won't know/care about the context, or be actively consuming news media or social media in a way that increases the salience of the issue in their lives. Wall-to-wall coverage it may be - but even so, that doesn't mean it reaches everyone by any means.
(b) pretty easy to show that this is not true; there will be conflicting advice and a plethora of unreliable sources.
A big advertising campaign won't necessarily reach everyone either, but it will certainly get the message across to a lot more people than simply relying on media and the 'national conversation' - and in a pithier and more effective way.
Quite. There's a mountain of evidence that putting downbeat messages on fag packets reduces smoking even when 100% of people know that smoking is really really bad for you.
Mr. Z, the illusion of truth effect (even though it's actual, not illusory, truth).
The more people hear a message the more likely they are to believe it, whether it's true or not.
This also has betting implications. Perez and Sainz have repeatedly had odds too long this season because attention is focused on Verstappen and, to a lesser extent, Leclerc.
Comments
If you were talking about China, you might have a point. But this is not China.
Just that it's a questionable choice.
If the fact that the PM isn't getting involved in 2 for 1 deals is your biggest concern, then maybe the PM actually has the right priorities?
There’s a process it has to go through when the mains comes back online, to get everything in phase before switching back to it.
Can't say anymore because technically I shouldn't have seen it but oh boy.....
Libertarian world: vouchers for schools for the poorest, all school provision a matter for local action; health - private insurance + support for the poorest; pensions/welfare - family is first port of call followed by local voluntary sector; pay - no legislation of minima or maxima; regulation, H and S - entirely a matter for each industry/activity to organise in its own legal self interest; finance: caveat emptor - no FSCS. BBC - abolished. Signs saying "No dogs, no Irish, no coloureds": lawful.
Etc. Not for me.
Except actually that's a much more recent expansion.
Of course, the key point is that good governance of a country is a much more complicated issue than can be captured in throwaway slogans.
The most vulnerable were vaccinated by Valentine's Day, the vulnerable were vaccinated by the end of March, yet lockdown continued until July.
It was pathetic, and never again is my view.
If the campaign reduces usage by 0.01% it saves £20m vs £15m cost.
If the campaign reduces usage by 0.5% it saves £985m
If the campaign reduces usage by 3% it saves almost £6bn.
Plus environmental and continuity of supply benefits.
This is absolutely the best possible investment the UK can make for £15m and it is not even close.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1578272634315321344
The problem at the moment is that a lot of advice comes from folk memory of 30/40 years ago and so is completely incorrect for the modern world. For an example switching lights off is useful but a 6 watt bulb costs 0.2p per hour to power so switching it off won't save you anything worthwhile. 20 years ago when it was a 100w bulb that was a different matter - 5 bulbs on would be costing you 15p...
Yes, there should be a public information campaign - more people than you might think, don’t know that there’s a correlation between the thermostat setting on the central heating, and the size of the gas bill.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/i-went-to-oxford-with-liz-truss-now-shes-pm-and-im-a-se-274656/
A few extracts:
"Liz Truss and I are the same age, which feels weird enough, but this means we also studied for the same degree at the same university through the same part of the mid-90s - PPE (philosophy, politics and economics) at Oxford. We were at different colleges - I Balliol, she Merton - but would have attended the same lectures.
"Yet we’ve grown to have a good deal more in common than our dear old Alma Mater. I’m an amoral opportunist who’ll do anything for money, attention and power too, although even I would draw the line at destroying the entire country’s economy and currency, smashing apart the pensions and housing market, just to enrich and enchant my chums.
"I found I had a talent for stripping, porn and domination, and abandoned my plans to be respectable, pursuing instead easy money; she found there wasn’t enough opportunity to become an MP in a party as electorally unsuccessful as the Liberal Democrats, and promptly deserted that sinking ship; when she found her best hope of power was to go hard right and pro-Brexit, further right she jogged.
"I too always pretend to agree with the people who pay me; it’s good business sense. I wouldn’t dream, for example, of telling the bankers who pay me that they should be taxed more heavily, and apparently nor will she. But then, I’m not a public servant, with the futures of millions unravelling between my grasping, grubby little fingers.
"Might she be kinky too? The O necklace she wears has led several commentators to suggest she might be a collared submissive. It’s a readily recognised symbol in BDSM communities, first seen in Pauline Reage’s The Story of O, now worn by submissives to announce they are owned by dominants. She’s continued to wear the necklace long after the whispers went viral, and indeed, seems to possess a few in similar styles.
"I’d love to imagine our Prime Minister was an out and proud, sex positive member of the kink community. But that would take courage, integrity, creativity, honesty. Also, surely she’d be happier and more fulfilled, less likely to chase joy by destroying her citizens’ dreams.
"No: likely that O suggests her plans for sterling and the UK’s GDP, and she and I have only our age in common."
People should take responsibility for their own weight and health, the state shouldn't be nudging people with rules and regulations on 2 for 1 deals etc
Support should be given where its needed, but where its not, leave people to themselves.
Expect a spike in births nine months after the power cuts.
Truss & Co should kick Libertarianism into the long grass. It is quite clear that the public has little time for it.
I would have all those product legal, appropriate taxed, and offer education but let people make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Rules forbidding smoking inside etc fall under the "don't harm others" proviso. Getting 2 for 1 on chicken nuggets to put into your freezer does not.
we have a number of people on PB who have commented that they have fixed deals of some age whereby their energy consumption is not particularly expensive - indeed, some are currently paying negligible sums. This will be true of many people more generally.
This does not, of course, reflect the other "costs"/ So a reminder that energy saving is in itself patriotic, Green, prudent, etc etc does no harm.
I just think its completely redundant, given its all over the media and the number one topic of conversation for most people already. I think the Government would be better pressed dealing with other issues instead.
The whole piece is worth a read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/09/electric-cars-help-california-electricity-grid/671420/
...When the state last suffered such a widespread heat wave two years ago, its grid lapsed into rolling blackouts. But this time, the grid held fast. State officials have said that an emergency cellphone alert that asked residents to reduce their power usage helped save it. Within 45 minutes of the alert going out, the state had cut more than 2,000 megawatts of electricity, roughly as much energy as it normally takes to power more than 1.5 million homes. And the grid was fine....
Without actually producing evidence.
The Conservative Government of the time - eventually - saw sense and moved to a factual information campaign. Just as well they did - it helped mitigate the developing disaster.
I remember trying to run the pharmacy during the three day week and the consequent blackouts; oil lamps and torches. What amazed me was that people still came in with their prescriptions with the place in darkness!
I didn’t expect Techne to show a bigger lead. After Kantor Techne probably next in line for Tory vote holding up, Labour not high and smaller gap between parties. I gained this knowledge by looking at what the firm gives us over a long time.
So in its own way, if Techne L48, C26 and haemorrhaging, lead 22 is as devestating as yougove or peoplepolling saying 30% lead.
Likewise, if next Kantor shows smallest lead of all polls, C28 L45 - that in its own way is utterly devastating.
Up soon is monthly Mori, as a poll it tends to be Labour friendly, so a 52-24 feels about right from them.
It is going to be quire hard to sell Truss's plan for growth in the Potteries.
“Take head, for The Devil is unchained”
I don't think its necessary today since everyone I know is doing everything they can to do this already anyway, and the media are talking about it all the time too. And if anyone has any energy saving tips, they're already sharing them.
If the Government were to do this, I'd be OK with it, as I have no objection to education. If the Government don't do this, I'd be OK with it, as I don't think its necessary. I'm OK with it either way.
As long as its education and not compulsion, then its fine.
For delivering the next Labour Government
I recall a One Worlder type who was horrified when i pointed out the benefit of not sending rivers of cash to OPEC - “but that means the West wins. There should be support for the oil producing countries!”
Fuck ‘em. Let’s send aid to Nepal instead.
From PM down the whole current government are wrong headed, on what is good government and what is Nanny State.
Labour 41% (+5)
Conservative 18% (-6)
Other Parties 15% (-1)
Don't know 25% (–)
Changes +/- 25 September
This is a disaster! The Tories are nearly third in a two horse race, this has not been seen since 1997!
I've no problem with libertarian principles, if they are taken alongside other principles of equal importance - and those of greater importance (notably, the dictates of common sense).
There's so many easy savings out there for the state if they want to find them. Just shifting all of the Xboxen in the country to eco mode is something mad like an 18MW reduction in grid usage.
If your over confidence and hubris leads to it not happening, it’s naughty step for you Horse, naughty step for a long time.
Instead of feeling elated and excited and triumphant, you should be fearing what Truss is about to do to Welfare State and public funding and workers rights in order to balance the books as being loudly signalled to the markets.
At same time Labour need to deliver on the nations problems in five years or the polls could switch and losing in 2029 could be 1979 all over again.
(a) is a classic fallacy. Great swathes of people will at best be dimly aware that costs are increasing, but won't know/care about the context, or be actively consuming news media or social media in a way that increases the salience of the issue in their lives. Wall-to-wall coverage it may be - but even so, that doesn't mean it reaches everyone by any means.
(b) pretty easy to show that this is not true; there will be conflicting advice and a plethora of unreliable sources.
A big advertising campaign won't necessarily reach everyone either, but it will certainly get the message across to a lot more people than simply relying on media and the 'national conversation' - and in a pithier and more effective way.
I have an app for my washer dryer which has a prompt on the app that to save money use after 10pm.
Anyway it's not a big deal for me either way. Education is something the Government can do and should if its necessary (eg HIV/AIDS as mentioned). If it is necessary here then go ahead, I just don't see it.
Maybe I have more faith in people to be sensible than I should.
That's what we are trying to avoid.
Yes, people are reducing overall consumption, but people will not be load shifting from peak to off peak demand periods. That's where public education is required: Don't do your ironing at 6pm!
- Downing st changing their remit.
- being blamed for higher interest rates.
Now neither looks likely.
The Truss plan seems to have backfired so much that BoE has actually been empowered
https://www.edmundconway.com/how-liz-trusss-plan-to-destroy-the-deep-state-backfired/
Which makes it all the more surprising that Truss chose to mention it in her keynote conference speech, doesn't it? Why did she do that when there's much more important stuff to talk about?
At leas you're not pretending anymore to not be a Tory. Welcome.
Seems outrageous, can they do that ?
ETA I typed that with double spaces and vanilla automatically trimmed one of them before posting it. There are 5 spaces there, wonder how many will survive?
ETA 2: 5 spaces before There also trimmed to 1.
There is a world of difference between stopping someone poisoning us and forcing us down a particular route that happens to suit the current health fad. Maybe you missed the fact that for decades Governments were complicit in pushing the line that the primary cause of obesity and ill health was fat when much of the evidence now is that it was refined and processed carbs.
If the Government decided that alcohol was bad for us and so should be banned would you support that? Or would you consider it an infringement of your rights and a Nanny state. Because that is the natural progression of your argument. And if you forget it was tried once before and failed very badly.
I don't bother anymore.
The UK government is doing diddly squat. Compare and contrast with the active approach taken in Germany.
Yes get him into Government. There is hope for the Tories
Back in 2016 - VW leasing managed to screw up the price of a particular top of the range Passat so that the lease cost was £120 a month rather than £500.
Everyone who got the finance through received the car (with VW making a production run of 1000 identical models) because VW couldn't see a way of extracting themselves from the offered contracts.
It was 2 years of very cheap motoring...
If the Mini box woke up the main Q box when in use (or pregented it turning off) then it wouldn't be a problem.
"Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does."
So we are not allowed to differentiate between good and bad government action?
It was and is a stupid statement.
And if you really, really care about this sort of thing you are probably using TeX anyway.
One thing that annoys me about modern stuff is when 'suggestions' are wrong but many will blindly follow them. I've had gaol flagged as a typo before. It is not.
The more people hear a message the more likely they are to believe it, whether it's true or not.
This also has betting implications. Perez and Sainz have repeatedly had odds too long this season because attention is focused on Verstappen and, to a lesser extent, Leclerc.
What photos like the one in the header always remind me of