Just 1 in 6 Brits are heating their home as much as they want – politicalbetting.com

System

Just 1 in 6 Brits are heating their home as much as they want – politicalbetting.com

29% of Britons say they can't afford to heat their home as much as they would like toA further 15% say they can, but need to save the money for other essentials https://t.co/gDSic9txPJ pic.twitter.com/2KTwgkd1Vo

Read the full story here

DecrepiterJohnL

Me too, on both counts.

edmundintokyo

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

DecrepiterJohnL

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

Well, I eat as much as I want and food costs money too.

felix

It's funny how few complained during the lockdowns when the government handed out cash for people to stay home. The idea that there'd never be a payback needed for this seems not to have entered their heads. The biggest crime of government in recent times, powered by the absurdity of modern media reporting is this pretence that nothing ever has consequences which may need sacrifices. And also the myth that there's a vast pool of cash hidden away by the 'rich' which could cover it all.

DecrepiterJohnL

What does not help is that many on prepayment meters are not claiming the government's energy support payments, per this from six weeks back:-

UK government’s £400 energy bill support going unclaimed
Many households who use non-smart prepayment meters are failing to redeem vouchers, says PayPoint
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/oct/31/uk-government-energy-bill-support-prepayment-meters-vouchers-paypoint

felix

And to add we see in the header the very revealing use of the word 'want' instead of the more appropriate word 'need'.

Heathener

I am heating only one room and that is set to a maximum of 17C at day and I turn it off altogether at night. I do have an electric blanket which is great. In the evenings I wear several layers and wrap a blanket around me. Whenever I boil a kettle I fill a flask with any residual hot water to re-use later.

My whole habits have altered and I am being extremely frugal. I now shop at Lidl and make things go further. I walk there and have sold my car and now only use public transport, but walk everywhere I can.

The CoL crisis is scarring a generation.

Heathener

And it's actually cheaper for me to shut down the house and live in Asia through winter.

edmundintokyo

Heathener said:

And it's actually cheaper for me to shut down the house and live in Asia through winter.

The UK government should be doing more to encourage options like this. Not necessarily Asia but you shouldn't have a bunch of pensioners sucking up the cold British winters with inadequate heating when Morocco is right there.

felix

Heathener said:

I am heating only one room and that is set to a maximum of 17C at day and I turn it off altogether at night. I do have an electric blanket which is great. In the evenings I wear several layers and wrap a blanket around me. Whenever I boil a kettle I fill a flask with any residual hot water to re-use later.

My whole habits have altered and I am being extremely frugal. I now shop at Lidl and make things go further. I walk there and have sold my car and now only use public transport, but walk everywhere I can.

The CoL crisis is scarring a generation.

Why is being frugal 'scarring'? Saving energy is a good thing. Making you a better person.

williamglenn

edmundintokyo said:

Heathener said:

And it's actually cheaper for me to shut down the house and live in Asia through winter.

The UK government should be doing more to encourage options like this. Not necessarily Asia but you shouldn't have a bunch of pensioners sucking up the cold British winters with inadequate heating when Morocco is right there.

What do you suggest? Liberate the Western Sahara and establish a colony?

felix

williamglenn said:

edmundintokyo said:

Heathener said:

And it's actually cheaper for me to shut down the house and live in Asia through winter.

The UK government should be doing more to encourage options like this. Not necessarily Asia but you shouldn't have a bunch of pensioners sucking up the cold British winters with inadequate heating when Morocco is right there.

What do you suggest? Liberate the Western Sahara and establish a colony?

The English winter is one of the mildest in Europe. Once again, the media hyperbole is massively overdone and ironic when juxtaposed with the global warming rhetoric

edmundintokyo

williamglenn said:

edmundintokyo said:

Heathener said:

And it's actually cheaper for me to shut down the house and live in Asia through winter.

The UK government should be doing more to encourage options like this. Not necessarily Asia but you shouldn't have a bunch of pensioners sucking up the cold British winters with inadequate heating when Morocco is right there.

What do you suggest? Liberate the Western Sahara and establish a colony?

That would be the traditional British approach but you can also just rent a place and live in it, you don't have to control the local administration. What the government should be doing is looking at this and saying: Suppose a retired person wants to spend the winter somewhere warmer, what are the obstacles? The internet is a thing, they can find their own accommodation. But maybe they need a little bit of medical care, they need to be able to collect their pensions, stuff like that. So maybe you need some volunteer NHS GPs in popular locations, maybe you need some administrative tweaks to the pension system, etc etc.

If the UK was in an actual war then it would be thinking about this, they'd be working through the problems and running the "Spend A Couple Of Months Pottering Around Marrakesh For Victory" campaign or whatever. But because it's not a direct participant, it's in "try to minimize the extent to which anybody has to change anything" mode, which is inevitably going to be sub-optimal.

darkage

We turned the thermostat down to 18 degrees which is the lowest recommended safe temperature and our bills are lower than last year saving us quite a bit of money (due to the subsidy) against our expectations.
A lot of people are turning the heating off completely but end up at risk of other problems (respiratory illnesses, frozen pipes, etc)

StuartDickson

- “… when you put it into the context of Tory sleaze, such as the PPE scandals, will be utterly toxic.“

The Michelle Mone scandal first broke in October 2020*, but was totally ignored by the Establishment until the last few weeks. Journalists and politicians, of most stripes, have badly let down the general public in this matter.

Beneficiaries of what are probably the criminal proceeds of fraud have been allowed over 2 years to divest assets and move the money, and themselves, abroad out of reach of law enforcement. The money will probably never be recovered and amazingly the Better Together toady Mone hasn’t even lost the Conservative whip yet. And why Michael Gove is still in office is a mystery.

This is a classic tale of Broken Britain. Mone and her husband are just chancers who were more audacious than your average chancers. The true thieves and criminals still have their feet under the desks at Fleet Street and Westminster.

*
https://web.archive.org/web/20220109103618/https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18780543.government-awarded-urgent-ppe-contract-firm-run-ex-associate-tory-peer-michelle-mone/

StuartDickson

darkage said:

We turned the thermostat down to 18 degrees which is the lowest recommended safe temperature and our bills are lower than last year saving us quite a bit of money (due to the subsidy) against our expectations.
A lot of people are turning the heating off completely but end up at risk of other problems (respiratory illnesses, frozen pipes, etc)

Turning your heating off is an incredibly stupid action. By all means lower the temperature (if you are really, really broke you could maybe even take it down to 14 degrees, but only in a dire emergency situation), but never ever actually switch it off during the winter. If you do you will almost inevitably cause structural damage to the fabric of the property.

And that’s before you even start looking at the damage you would be doing to your health.

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

StuartDickson

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

edmundintokyo

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The question wasn't "pleasant", it was "as much as you want".

Nearly everything you buy is a tradeoff between how much you want of something and how much you want to spend on it.

darkage

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

StuartDickson

edmundintokyo said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The question wasn't "pleasant", it was "as much as you want".

Nearly everything you buy is a tradeoff between how much you want of something and how much you want to spend on it.

And that choice is up to individuals. It is none of your business.

I’m making the (reasonable) assumption that nobody is heating up their abode to the extent that it is unpleasantly hot.

StuartDickson

Yet more evidence that Starmer has totally abandoned Scotland and is focusing laser-like on Middle England.

Wise in the short term. Idiotic in the long term. He’s not just burning bridges, he’s intent on publicly humiliating old allies.

https://archive.ph/biqdZ

His only hope is that the Scottish media will totally ignore the dichotomy. Loyal as always, they will try their very best, but I’m afraid that access to the English media is so easy now that this stuff will spread anyway.

edmundintokyo

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The question wasn't "pleasant", it was "as much as you want".

Nearly everything you buy is a tradeoff between how much you want of something and how much you want to spend on it.

And that choice is up to individuals. It is none of your business.

I’m making the (reasonable) assumption that nobody is heating up their abode to the extent that it is unpleasantly hot.

You don't heat it so that it's unpleasantly hot, but most people, even quite rich people, don't heat as much as they would if the heating was free.

StuartDickson

felix said:

It's funny how few complained during the lockdowns when the government handed out cash for people to stay home. The idea that there'd never be a payback needed for this seems not to have entered their heads. The biggest crime of government in recent times, powered by the absurdity of modern media reporting is this pretence that nothing ever has consequences which may need sacrifices. And also the myth that there's a vast pool of cash hidden away by the 'rich' which could cover it all.

Understanding of elementary economics is low among the populace. It is therefore unsurprising that many people have very odd ideas about how it all works.

Scots attempted to remedy this with ‘Modern Studies’ and Swedes with ‘Samhällskunskap’ in the school curriculum, but I think that the study of economics needs to significantly rise in profile and status. Educating the masses used to be a hobby of the middle classes, but it seems to have fallen out of fashion. Instead we seem to be actively striving to make society dumber.

You can of course choose to ignore fundamental economics, but only in the short term. Reality will always give you an unpleasant wake up call in the end.

StuartDickson

edmundintokyo said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The question wasn't "pleasant", it was "as much as you want".

Nearly everything you buy is a tradeoff between how much you want of something and how much you want to spend on it.

And that choice is up to individuals. It is none of your business.

I’m making the (reasonable) assumption that nobody is heating up their abode to the extent that it is unpleasantly hot.

You don't heat it so that it's unpleasantly hot, but most people, even quite rich people, don't heat as much as they would if the heating was free.

Nope, I still don’t understand what on earth you are trying to say here. I’ve read and re-read your initial sentence - “The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy.” - multiple times, but I still cannot make head nor tail of it. You seem to be saying that there is something intrinsically wrong with a human being wanting to heat their home to the level of their own choosing. If so, who should instead be making that decision? Big Brother?

Heathener

felix said:

williamglenn said:

edmundintokyo said:

Heathener said:

And it's actually cheaper for me to shut down the house and live in Asia through winter.

The UK government should be doing more to encourage options like this. Not necessarily Asia but you shouldn't have a bunch of pensioners sucking up the cold British winters with inadequate heating when Morocco is right there.

What do you suggest? Liberate the Western Sahara and establish a colony?

The English winter is one of the mildest in Europe. Once again, the media hyperbole is massively overdone and ironic when juxtaposed with the global warming rhetoric

You're being a dick this morning

Heathener

darkage said:

We turned the thermostat down to 18 degrees which is the lowest recommended safe temperature and our bills are lower than last year saving us quite a bit of money (due to the subsidy) against our expectations.
A lot of people are turning the heating off completely but end up at risk of other problems (respiratory illnesses, frozen pipes, etc)

Yeah I'm waking up a lot in the night because I'm really cold and I can feel it on my lungs. Not much I can do about it as I can't afford to keep the heating on. It's grim and it's tough.

Felix is being a prat.

Heathener

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

We turned the thermostat down to 18 degrees which is the lowest recommended safe temperature and our bills are lower than last year saving us quite a bit of money (due to the subsidy) against our expectations.
A lot of people are turning the heating off completely but end up at risk of other problems (respiratory illnesses, frozen pipes, etc)

Turning your heating off is an incredibly stupid action. By all means lower the temperature (if you are really, really broke you could maybe even take it down to 14 degrees, but only in a dire emergency situation), but never ever actually switch it off during the winter. If you do you will almost inevitably cause structural damage to the fabric of the property.

And that’s before you even start looking at the damage you would be doing to your health.

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

This is all true but I simply cannot afford to keep either my body or my house healthy. I don't have enough money to do so.

IanB2

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The question wasn't "pleasant", it was "as much as you want".

Nearly everything you buy is a tradeoff between how much you want of something and how much you want to spend on it.

And that choice is up to individuals. It is none of your business.

I’m making the (reasonable) assumption that nobody is heating up their abode to the extent that it is unpleasantly hot.

My mother is. But she hasn’t had the bill, yet.

Heathener

felix said:

williamglenn said:

edmundintokyo said:

Heathener said:

And it's actually cheaper for me to shut down the house and live in Asia through winter.

The UK government should be doing more to encourage options like this. Not necessarily Asia but you shouldn't have a bunch of pensioners sucking up the cold British winters with inadequate heating when Morocco is right there.

What do you suggest? Liberate the Western Sahara and establish a colony?

The English winter is one of the mildest in Europe. Once again, the media hyperbole is massively overdone and ironic when juxtaposed with the global warming rhetoric

The mean CET this month is 2.7C which is -1.8C below the 1960-1990 base which itself was one of the coldest periods they could find.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html

Over the next 7 days that mean is going to drop a lot more, probably to not far off 0C.

0C as a mean temperature for the first c. 3 weeks of December is cold in anyone's reckoning.

As I say, you're being a prat.

StuartDickson

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

StuartDickson

Heathener said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

We turned the thermostat down to 18 degrees which is the lowest recommended safe temperature and our bills are lower than last year saving us quite a bit of money (due to the subsidy) against our expectations.
A lot of people are turning the heating off completely but end up at risk of other problems (respiratory illnesses, frozen pipes, etc)

Turning your heating off is an incredibly stupid action. By all means lower the temperature (if you are really, really broke you could maybe even take it down to 14 degrees, but only in a dire emergency situation), but never ever actually switch it off during the winter. If you do you will almost inevitably cause structural damage to the fabric of the property.

And that’s before you even start looking at the damage you would be doing to your health.

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

This is all true but I simply cannot afford to keep either my body or my house healthy. I don't have enough money to do so.

I don’t mean to be rude, but if your personal finances really are that perilous then you are making a profoundly unwise choice investing your valuable time posting on an obscure blog. Time really is money. Use it more wisely.

Foxy

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

IanB2

StuartDickson said:

Heathener said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

We turned the thermostat down to 18 degrees which is the lowest recommended safe temperature and our bills are lower than last year saving us quite a bit of money (due to the subsidy) against our expectations.
A lot of people are turning the heating off completely but end up at risk of other problems (respiratory illnesses, frozen pipes, etc)

Turning your heating off is an incredibly stupid action. By all means lower the temperature (if you are really, really broke you could maybe even take it down to 14 degrees, but only in a dire emergency situation), but never ever actually switch it off during the winter. If you do you will almost inevitably cause structural damage to the fabric of the property.

And that’s before you even start looking at the damage you would be doing to your health.

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

This is all true but I simply cannot afford to keep either my body or my house healthy. I don't have enough money to do so.

I don’t mean to be rude, but if your personal finances really are that perilous then you are making a profoundly unwise choice investing your valuable time posting on an obscure blog. Time really is money. Use it more wisely.

Spare time can also often be a drain on money, whereas posting here is cost-free (other than the psychological damage from reading some of Leon’s more ranty posts)

IanB2

Keir Starmer must urgently develop a series of practical policies to address the economic “disaster” of Brexit and prevent it from driving Scotland towards independence, a former Labour Europe minister has warned.

Backed by several other Labour peers, Peter Hain, who is also a former Northern Ireland secretary, says the crises caused by climate change, the Ukraine war, the lack of economic growth and rising energy prices can only be tackled through closer cooperation with our EU neighbours than the current Brexit arrangements allow.

Writing in today’s Observer, Lord Hain describes Brexit as a “taboo subject” because the Conservatives “won’t admit” the huge damage it has done to the economy, and because Labour remains “understandably reluctant to rekindle old Brexit flames”.

StuartDickson

IanB2 said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The question wasn't "pleasant", it was "as much as you want".

Nearly everything you buy is a tradeoff between how much you want of something and how much you want to spend on it.

And that choice is up to individuals. It is none of your business.

I’m making the (reasonable) assumption that nobody is heating up their abode to the extent that it is unpleasantly hot.

My mother is. But she hasn’t had the bill, yet.

That’s a classic. Elderly people often have the heating on much warmer than younger folk. But there is a very simply physiological explanation for that: their old tickers aren’t as robust.

I sometimes nearly faint from the heat at my parent-in-law’s home. I’d guess it must be about 24 degrees sometimes. And they live in a colder part of the country than us. It is quite an experience coming back from a long winter walk in the forest at -20 straight into a balmy villa at +24.

darkage

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

Buildings in Sweden are built like this to withstand serious sub zero temperatures, there is no point in building them this way in the UK. You can effectively retrofit insulation, that is probably the best way to improve the UK housing stock, rather than messing around yet more with building regulations.

I've mentioned before that there is a consumption issue in the nordic countries arising from the large houses and suburban lifestyles that people have. Requires a lot of energy, even if the houses are well insulated. 25000 kwh/year is pretty typical as a starting point for a modest sized house, in my experience. It is not without environmental consequences.

StuartDickson

IanB2 said:

Keir Starmer must urgently develop a series of practical policies to address the economic “disaster” of Brexit and prevent it from driving Scotland towards independence, a former Labour Europe minister has warned.

Backed by several other Labour peers, Peter Hain, who is also a former Northern Ireland secretary, says the crises caused by climate change, the Ukraine war, the lack of economic growth and rising energy prices can only be tackled through closer cooperation with our EU neighbours than the current Brexit arrangements allow.

Writing in today’s Observer, Lord Hain describes Brexit as a “taboo subject” because the Conservatives “won’t admit” the huge damage it has done to the economy, and because Labour remains “understandably reluctant to rekindle old Brexit flames”.

Alastair Campbell has coined the term Brexomertà to describe Labour’s (and other’s) ostrich-like behaviour on Brexit. It is very apt. Starmer can’t make Brexit work, and the longer he pretends he can, the worse it’ll get.

Tories = pro-Brexit
Labour = pro-Brexit
Lib Dems = pro-Brexit
SNP = anti-Brexit

Only one party is on the right side here.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dickson, ironic, as the SNP were in favour of leaving the EU *and* the UK at the same time.

Good morning, everyone.

StuartDickson

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

Buildings in Sweden are built like this to withstand serious sub zero temperatures, there is no point in building them this way in the UK. You can effectively retrofit insulation, that is probably the best way to improve the UK housing stock, rather than messing around yet more with building regulations.

I've mentioned before that there is a consumption issue in the nordic countries arising from the large houses and suburban lifestyles that people have. Requires a lot of energy, even if the houses are well insulated. 25000 kwh/year is pretty typical as a starting point for a modest sized house, in my experience. It is not without environmental consequences.

25000 kwh/year ?!? WTF?!? “Pretty typical”?!? “A starting point”?!?

I’m sorry, but that is complete, unmitigated nonsense. We live in a large villa - much larger than the average - and our consumption is nowhere near that. It’s less than 14500, and that’s including charging 2 electric cars every night.

If you are using 25000 you are doing something fundamentally wrong, or living in a mansion the size of Southfork. Or running a canabis farm.

StuartDickson

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dickson, ironic, as the SNP were in favour of leaving the EU *and* the UK at the same time.

Good morning, everyone.

Fake news.

But good morning anyway.

darkage

darkage said:

We turned the thermostat down to 18 degrees which is the lowest recommended safe temperature and our bills are lower than last year saving us quite a bit of money (due to the subsidy) against our expectations.
A lot of people are turning the heating off completely but end up at risk of other problems (respiratory illnesses, frozen pipes, etc)

I just looked at our bills and see that we are paying £130 per month and are around £700 in credit. Our house is not energy efficient, it is solid wall construction, single glazed, no insulation except small amounts of secondary glazing; and the thermostat is on 18, we've just got used to it.

Heating is the third most important thing after eating and housing. If people are not able to afford £130 per month, then something is seriously wrong. Particularly given, as I have pointed out before, the take home pay for a minimum wage job is something like £1400 per month, and we have something near full employment.

Foxy

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

Keir Starmer must urgently develop a series of practical policies to address the economic “disaster” of Brexit and prevent it from driving Scotland towards independence, a former Labour Europe minister has warned.

Backed by several other Labour peers, Peter Hain, who is also a former Northern Ireland secretary, says the crises caused by climate change, the Ukraine war, the lack of economic growth and rising energy prices can only be tackled through closer cooperation with our EU neighbours than the current Brexit arrangements allow.

Writing in today’s Observer, Lord Hain describes Brexit as a “taboo subject” because the Conservatives “won’t admit” the huge damage it has done to the economy, and because Labour remains “understandably reluctant to rekindle old Brexit flames”.

Alastair Campbell has coined the term Brexomertà to describe Labour’s (and other’s) ostrich-like behaviour on Brexit. It is very apt. Starmer can’t make Brexit work, and the longer he pretends he can, the worse it’ll get.

Tories = pro-Brexit
Labour = pro-Brexit
Lib Dems = pro-Brexit
SNP = anti-Brexit

Only one party is on the right side here.

Not correct for Lib Dems:

https://www.libdems.org.uk/news/article/rebuilding-trade-cooperation-with-europe

The Greens too favour rejoining the SM as a step to full Rejoin:

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2022/10/02/greens-call-for-re-joining-the-eu-“as-soon-as-political-situation-is-favourable”/

Though If I lived in Scotland I would vote SNP.

felix

StuartDickson said:

felix said:

It's funny how few complained during the lockdowns when the government handed out cash for people to stay home. The idea that there'd never be a payback needed for this seems not to have entered their heads. The biggest crime of government in recent times, powered by the absurdity of modern media reporting is this pretence that nothing ever has consequences which may need sacrifices. And also the myth that there's a vast pool of cash hidden away by the 'rich' which could cover it all.

Understanding of elementary economics is low among the populace. It is therefore unsurprising that many people have very odd ideas about how it all works.

Scots attempted to remedy this with ‘Modern Studies’ and Swedes with ‘Samhällskunskap’ in the school curriculum, but I think that the study of economics needs to significantly rise in profile and status. Educating the masses used to be a hobby of the middle classes, but it seems to have fallen out of fashion. Instead we seem to be actively striving to make society dumber.

You can of course choose to ignore fundamental economics, but only in the short term. Reality will always give you an unpleasant wake up call in the end.

Golly - I agree - have you changed your medication 🤣

StuartDickson

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

felix

Heathener said:

felix said:

williamglenn said:

edmundintokyo said:

Heathener said:

And it's actually cheaper for me to shut down the house and live in Asia through winter.

The UK government should be doing more to encourage options like this. Not necessarily Asia but you shouldn't have a bunch of pensioners sucking up the cold British winters with inadequate heating when Morocco is right there.

What do you suggest? Liberate the Western Sahara and establish a colony?

The English winter is one of the mildest in Europe. Once again, the media hyperbole is massively overdone and ironic when juxtaposed with the global warming rhetoric

You're being a dick this morning

Insightful as ever!

ydoethur

StuartDickson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dickson, ironic, as the SNP were in favour of leaving the EU *and* the UK at the same time.

Good morning, everyone.

Fake news.

But good morning anyway.

The mask really has slipped with this one recently, hasn’t it? A liar, a fool and a raging xenophobe.

No wonder the SNP were nicknamed the Natsy party in some quarters given people like him are supporting it.

darkage

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

Buildings in Sweden are built like this to withstand serious sub zero temperatures, there is no point in building them this way in the UK. You can effectively retrofit insulation, that is probably the best way to improve the UK housing stock, rather than messing around yet more with building regulations.

I've mentioned before that there is a consumption issue in the nordic countries arising from the large houses and suburban lifestyles that people have. Requires a lot of energy, even if the houses are well insulated. 25000 kwh/year is pretty typical as a starting point for a modest sized house, in my experience. It is not without environmental consequences.

25000 kwh/year ?!? WTF?!? “Pretty typical”?!? “A starting point”?!?

I’m sorry, but that is complete, unmitigated nonsense. We live in a large villa - much larger than the average - and our consumption is nowhere near that. It’s less than 14500, and that’s including charging 2 electric cars every night.

If you are using 25000 you are doing something fundamentally wrong, or living in a mansion the size of Southfork. Or running a canabis farm.

https://www.enerdata.net/estore/energy-market/sweden/

Total Energy Consumption (Sweden): In 2021, total energy consumption per capita was 4.4 toe (around 50% above the EU average). At around 12 500 kWh, the country's electricity consumption per capita is the second highest in the EU (2.2 times higher than the EU average).

StuartDickson

felix said:

StuartDickson said:

felix said:

It's funny how few complained during the lockdowns when the government handed out cash for people to stay home. The idea that there'd never be a payback needed for this seems not to have entered their heads. The biggest crime of government in recent times, powered by the absurdity of modern media reporting is this pretence that nothing ever has consequences which may need sacrifices. And also the myth that there's a vast pool of cash hidden away by the 'rich' which could cover it all.

Understanding of elementary economics is low among the populace. It is therefore unsurprising that many people have very odd ideas about how it all works.

Scots attempted to remedy this with ‘Modern Studies’ and Swedes with ‘Samhällskunskap’ in the school curriculum, but I think that the study of economics needs to significantly rise in profile and status. Educating the masses used to be a hobby of the middle classes, but it seems to have fallen out of fashion. Instead we seem to be actively striving to make society dumber.

You can of course choose to ignore fundamental economics, but only in the short term. Reality will always give you an unpleasant wake up call in the end.

Golly - I agree - have you changed your medication 🤣

It is a common misunderstanding that supporters of Scottish independence are all die-hard socialists. Many are of course, but far from all of us. The key is the word “national”: the movement has members from all strands of national life. I think that is why the Unionist parties often struggle to oppose us. Criticism of Scottish independence very often comes across as criticism of the Scottish nation.

I self-define as a centre-right liberal. I have served as a Moderate councillor, although I left that party several years ago and now vote Centre (or Liberal for the local council).

ydoethur

darkage said:

darkage said:

We turned the thermostat down to 18 degrees which is the lowest recommended safe temperature and our bills are lower than last year saving us quite a bit of money (due to the subsidy) against our expectations.
A lot of people are turning the heating off completely but end up at risk of other problems (respiratory illnesses, frozen pipes, etc)

I just looked at our bills and see that we are paying £130 per month and are around £700 in credit. Our house is not energy efficient, it is solid wall construction, single glazed, no insulation except small amounts of secondary glazing; and the thermostat is on 18, we've just got used to it.

Heating is the third most important thing after eating and housing. If people are not able to afford £130 per month, then something is seriously wrong. Particularly given, as I have pointed out before, the take home pay for a minimum wage job is something like £1400 per month, and we have something near full employment.

‘Full employment’ also includes part-time work. Underemployment is a problem in parts of the workforce.

Jonathan

With a sick son, I thought screw it and turned up the heating. It’s -5 outside.

ydoethur

Jonathan said:

With a sick son, I thought screw it and turned up the heating. It’s -5 outside.

I hope you turned up the heating for the inside, however? One heater isn’t going to make too much difference to the outside…

Hope your son is better soon.

StuartDickson

Jonathan said:

With a sick son, I thought screw it and turned up the heating. It’s -5 outside.

You’re a good dad.

Jonathan

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jonathan, hope your son gets well soon.

ydoethur

Jonathan said:

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

The irony of course, as Mr Dancer noted, is that the SNP did want to leave the EU - just not in the way they ended up doing so.

Theuniondivvie

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dickson, ironic, as the SNP were in favour of leaving the EU *and* the UK at the same time.

Good morning, everyone.

Fake news.

But good morning anyway.

The mask really has slipped with this one recently, hasn’t it? A liar, a fool and a raging xenophobe.

No wonder the SNP were nicknamed the Natsy party in some quarters given people like him are supporting it.

Quite funny that you were bleating about abuse just 24 hrs ago.

ydoethur

Theuniondivvie said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dickson, ironic, as the SNP were in favour of leaving the EU *and* the UK at the same time.

Good morning, everyone.

Fake news.

But good morning anyway.

The mask really has slipped with this one recently, hasn’t it? A liar, a fool and a raging xenophobe.

No wonder the SNP were nicknamed the Natsy party in some quarters given people like him are supporting it.

Quite funny that you were bleating about abuse just 24 hrs ago.

Touché, or should I say, touchy?

Although in my defence, what I said about Stuart is a statement of fact.

Fishing

We certainly need to prioritise cheap energy and scrap the Net Zero garbage, which is going to cost us £1 trillion over the next couple of decades. But that is an all-party fiasco.

But even the most ignorant of the public surely realise that the high energy costs this winter are mostly caused by Russia's aggression? Blaming the government for that is just bizarre.

darkage

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

darkage said:

We turned the thermostat down to 18 degrees which is the lowest recommended safe temperature and our bills are lower than last year saving us quite a bit of money (due to the subsidy) against our expectations.
A lot of people are turning the heating off completely but end up at risk of other problems (respiratory illnesses, frozen pipes, etc)

I just looked at our bills and see that we are paying £130 per month and are around £700 in credit. Our house is not energy efficient, it is solid wall construction, single glazed, no insulation except small amounts of secondary glazing; and the thermostat is on 18, we've just got used to it.

Heating is the third most important thing after eating and housing. If people are not able to afford £130 per month, then something is seriously wrong. Particularly given, as I have pointed out before, the take home pay for a minimum wage job is something like £1400 per month, and we have something near full employment.

‘Full employment’ also includes part-time work. Underemployment is a problem in parts of the workforce.

Yes - I agree. I looked in to minimum wage jobs and most seem to be around the 15-30 hours per week mark and in a sort of precarious zero hours type arrangement where you are obliged to do the hours you are 'offered' at the start of the month.

There is a big problem in the UK with childcare. Families relying on one income, or one income plus very occasional part time work. You can have one person earning reasonably well but then they are getting hammered on tax.

Foxy

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

Theuniondivvie

Jonathan said:

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

Well, one organisation allows members to decide on continuing membership, the other doesn't. That's before one even considers the different amounts of sovereignty allowed.
As ever X is not the same as Y.

DecrepiterJohnL

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

Sounds like Wes has been listening to Tony Blair about the need to "reform the public services" which was never defined other than as creeping privatisation.

Jonathan

Theuniondivvie said:

Jonathan said:

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

Well, one organisation allows members to decide on continuing membership, the other doesn't. That's before one even considers the different amounts of sovereignty allowed.
As ever X is not the same as Y.

That’s true. The nationalist politics that is driving all this is very similar. Brexit folk and SNP folk should understand and perhaps sympathise with one another.

StuartDickson

Jonathan said:

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

One does not need to be mentally weak to be a Unionist, but it helps.

ydoethur

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

I have been slowly coming to the conclusion the problem in our system must be elsewhere. We have five different parties in power one way or another at a high level in the country - Tories in London, SNP in Edinburgh, Labour in Cardiff and off and on the DUP and Sinn Fein in Belfast.

And they all seem to have in common that they are more bent than a wire coat hanger with an elephant dangling off it, and completely incapable of making intelligent decisions for the benefit of the people they’re meant to be governing.

Admittedly, that’s not a problem confined to the UK. You could say the same about most countries. France, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Poland within the EU, India, China, the Philippines, Israel, America, Mexico, Brazil…

Something is very wrong in the world right now. And I’ve no idea what it is. @BartholomewRoberts has suggested Twitter may be the problem in the past as it leads to sound bites and shot termism rather than reasoned analysis. But you could see the rot with Blair and Brown, or Chavez, Netanyahu and Sarkozy, and they predated Twitter.

StuartDickson

Jonathan said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Jonathan said:

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

Well, one organisation allows members to decide on continuing membership, the other doesn't. That's before one even considers the different amounts of sovereignty allowed.
As ever X is not the same as Y.

That’s true. The nationalist politics that is driving all this is very similar. Brexit folk and SNP folk should understand and perhaps sympathise with one another.

I understand Brexit folk. Indeed, that is the reason I oppose them.

ydoethur

Theuniondivvie said:

Jonathan said:

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

Well, one organisation allows members to decide on continuing membership, the other doesn't. That's before one even considers the different amounts of sovereignty allowed.
As ever X is not the same as Y.

On the contrary. The EU does allow people to decide on continuing membership in theory, although in practice it has made it as difficult as humanly possible for countries to leave.

Icarus

On topic - How will the cost of energy affect the choice of General Election date? Surely a June 2024 election must be favourite.

IanB2

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

At heart Wes is an authoritarian centraliser, as are many in Labour, which is why I will believe Starmer’s handing power over to local authorities when I see it. My guess is that, if if happens, it will come with a whole package of targets and strings such that Whitehall really won’t have given up very much power at all.

ydoethur

Icarus said:

On topic - How will the cost of energy affect the choice of General Election date? Surely a June 2024 election must be favourite.

Depends on whether there’s a sign it might be coming down by then. Which really depends on the war in Ukraine and what happens to Russia after.

If you think that energy prices are the key determinant of the date, my advice would be, don’t bet. We have no idea how that scenario will play out.

Theuniondivvie

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

It's not just that the centrists happen to be in charge of Labour atm, but their evident desire to crush & expel the lefties (tbf a lot of the Jezzamites were similar when they held the whip hand, they were just a lot more crap at it). Of course a lot of folk are excited by the people's flag of palest pink and tough on internal enemies combo, it's grown up politics apparently.

HYUFD

Yet whoever wins the next general election there will be no major fall in energy bills until peace in Ukraine and an end to sanctions on Russia and increased energy supplies. Producing more of our own energy would also help

Foxy

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

Sounds like Wes has been listening to Tony Blair about the need to "reform the public services" which was never defined other than as creeping privatisation.

I left the Labour Party 20 years ago over the Iraq war-mongering and New Labour's NHS policy which was a direct reversal of its 1997 pledge. I haven't voted Labour since, and see nothing to tempt me back.

Casino_Royale

edmundintokyo said:

williamglenn said:

edmundintokyo said:

Heathener said:

And it's actually cheaper for me to shut down the house and live in Asia through winter.

The UK government should be doing more to encourage options like this. Not necessarily Asia but you shouldn't have a bunch of pensioners sucking up the cold British winters with inadequate heating when Morocco is right there.

What do you suggest? Liberate the Western Sahara and establish a colony?

That would be the traditional British approach but you can also just rent a place and live in it, you don't have to control the local administration. What the government should be doing is looking at this and saying: Suppose a retired person wants to spend the winter somewhere warmer, what are the obstacles? The internet is a thing, they can find their own accommodation. But maybe they need a little bit of medical care, they need to be able to collect their pensions, stuff like that. So maybe you need some volunteer NHS GPs in popular locations, maybe you need some administrative tweaks to the pension system, etc etc.

If the UK was in an actual war then it would be thinking about this, they'd be working through the problems and running the "Spend A Couple Of Months Pottering Around Marrakesh For Victory" campaign or whatever. But because it's not a direct participant, it's in "try to minimize the extent to which anybody has to change anything" mode, which is inevitably going to be sub-optimal.

I think this is far-centrism, in the same way you can get far-left or far-right views.

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

Yet whoever wins the next general election there will be no major fall in energy bills until peace in Ukraine and an end to sanctions on Russia and increased energy supplies. Producing more of our own energy would also help

Then we’re back to tidal lagoons.

Jonathan

StuartDickson said:

Jonathan said:

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

One does not need to be mentally weak to be a Unionist, but it helps.

I definitely don’t understand it. Turning the clock back and recreating historic divisions in pursuit of sovereignty doesn’t seem to work in practice . I would have thought that the experience of Brexit might give pause to independence advocates. It might not help Scotland. It might make everyone poorer and no more free or in control.

Like Brexit, Scottish independence feels more of a theological position that a practical thing. Heart, not head.

StuartDickson

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

I have been slowly coming to the conclusion the problem in our system must be elsewhere. We have five different parties in power one way or another at a high level in the country - Tories in London, SNP in Edinburgh, Labour in Cardiff and off and on the DUP and Sinn Fein in Belfast.

And they all seem to have in common that they are more bent than a wire coat hanger with an elephant dangling off it, and completely incapable of making intelligent decisions for the benefit of the people they’re meant to be governing.

Admittedly, that’s not a problem confined to the UK. You could say the same about most countries. France, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Poland within the EU, India, China, the Philippines, Israel, America, Mexico, Brazil…

Something is very wrong in the world right now. And I’ve no idea what it is. @BartholomewRoberts has suggested Twitter may be the problem in the past as it leads to sound bites and shot termism rather than reasoned analysis. But you could see the rot with Blair and Brown, or Chavez, Netanyahu and Sarkozy, and they predated Twitter.

In retrospect, John Major was probably the last decent man who will have held the soon-to-be-defunct office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Ah, the Cones Hotline. Those were the days! If only governments confined themselves to such trifling ventures.

HYUFD

Jonathan said:

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

Some who backed Yes in 2014 also backed leaving the EU in 2016 eg Jim Sillars.

Some logic in that if you want Scotland to be a truly independent nation rather than just swapping being a nation of the UK with a region of the EU

Casino_Royale

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

Inflation plus 5% would be near enough a 20% pay rise.

That's not going to happen under any administration.

tlg86

Lol, Rizwan not wanting to walk off having been clean bowled.

Jonathan

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

Sounds like Wes has been listening to Tony Blair about the need to "reform the public services" which was never defined other than as creeping privatisation.

I left the Labour Party 20 years ago over the Iraq war-mongering and New Labour's NHS policy which was a direct reversal of its 1997 pledge. I haven't voted Labour since, and see nothing to tempt me back.

In a Tory/Labour marginal I hope you would do the decent thing under FPTP.

Casino_Royale

Jonathan said:

With a sick son, I thought screw it and turned up the heating. It’s -5 outside.

I have a sick daughter too.

Hope your son gets well soon mate.

StuartDickson

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

Some who backed Yes in 2014 also backed leaving the EU in 2016 eg Jim Sillars.

Some logic in that if you want Scotland to be a truly independent nation rather than just swapping being a nation of the UK with a region of the EU

We see it as being a European nation is preferable to being a region of Greater England. But I can understand your Francoist world-view, even though I personally oppose it.

ydoethur

tlg86 said:

Lol, Rizwan not wanting to walk off having been clean bowled.

I remember Curtly Ambrose, one of four wickets in five balls for Andrew Caddick, standing at the crease for three solid minutes shaking his head in disbelief at the brilliance of the ball that got him.

Which, from Ambrose, the master of the unplayable Yorker, was some compliment.

ydoethur

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

With a sick son, I thought screw it and turned up the heating. It’s -5 outside.

I have a sick daughter too.

Hope your son gets well soon mate.

Hope your daughter is a bit better this morning. Any luck finding a GP?

ydoethur

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

Some who backed Yes in 2014 also backed leaving the EU in 2016 eg Jim Sillars.

Some logic in that if you want Scotland to be a truly independent nation rather than just swapping being a nation of the UK with a region of the EU

We see it as being a European nation is preferable to being a region of Greater England. But I can understand your Francoist world-view, even though I personally oppose it.

Genuine LOL.

StuartDickson

IanB2 said:

StuartDickson said:

Heathener said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

We turned the thermostat down to 18 degrees which is the lowest recommended safe temperature and our bills are lower than last year saving us quite a bit of money (due to the subsidy) against our expectations.
A lot of people are turning the heating off completely but end up at risk of other problems (respiratory illnesses, frozen pipes, etc)

Turning your heating off is an incredibly stupid action. By all means lower the temperature (if you are really, really broke you could maybe even take it down to 14 degrees, but only in a dire emergency situation), but never ever actually switch it off during the winter. If you do you will almost inevitably cause structural damage to the fabric of the property.

And that’s before you even start looking at the damage you would be doing to your health.

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

This is all true but I simply cannot afford to keep either my body or my house healthy. I don't have enough money to do so.

I don’t mean to be rude, but if your personal finances really are that perilous then you are making a profoundly unwise choice investing your valuable time posting on an obscure blog. Time really is money. Use it more wisely.

Spare time can also often be a drain on money, whereas posting here is cost-free (other than the psychological damage from reading some of Leon’s more ranty posts)

No activity is “cost-free”. That’s just elementary economics. Look up opportunity cost.

Theuniondivvie

Jonathan said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Jonathan said:

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

Well, one organisation allows members to decide on continuing membership, the other doesn't. That's before one even considers the different amounts of sovereignty allowed.
As ever X is not the same as Y.

That’s true. The nationalist politics that is driving all this is very similar. Brexit folk and SNP folk should understand and perhaps sympathise with one another.

I'm a simple soul, I tend to think people who support and vote for an explicitly Brexit supporting party are Brexit folk.

'So let me be very clear: with Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU. We will not be joining the single market. We will not be joining a customs union.'

Icarus

ydoethur said:

Icarus said:

On topic - How will the cost of energy affect the choice of General Election date? Surely a June 2024 election must be favourite.

Depends on whether there’s a sign it might be coming down by then. Which really depends on the war in Ukraine and what happens to Russia after.

If you think that energy prices are the key determinant of the date, my advice would be, don’t bet. We have no idea how that scenario will play out.

My heating oil purchases (ppl =pence per litre ex VAT)


27/11/22 600l Home Heating Oil 76.52 ppl
31/03/22 500l Home Heating Oil 105.99 ppl
08/02/22 500l Home Heating Oil 65.29 ppl
09/11/21 690l Home Heating Oil 57.58 ppl
07/04/21 600l Home Heating Oil 40.67 ppl
06/02/21 749l Home Heating Oil 37.95 ppl
07/12/20 601l Home Heating Oil 33.50 ppl
01/07/20 601l Home Heating Oil 27.65 ppl

Foxy

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

I have been slowly coming to the conclusion the problem in our system must be elsewhere. We have five different parties in power one way or another at a high level in the country - Tories in London, SNP in Edinburgh, Labour in Cardiff and off and on the DUP and Sinn Fein in Belfast.

And they all seem to have in common that they are more bent than a wire coat hanger with an elephant dangling off it, and completely incapable of making intelligent decisions for the benefit of the people they’re meant to be governing.

Admittedly, that’s not a problem confined to the UK. You could say the same about most countries. France, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Poland within the EU, India, China, the Philippines, Israel, America, Mexico, Brazil…

Something is very wrong in the world right now. And I’ve no idea what it is. @BartholomewRoberts has suggested Twitter may be the problem in the past as it leads to sound bites and shot termism rather than reasoned analysis. But you could see the rot with Blair and Brown, or Chavez, Netanyahu and Sarkozy, and they predated Twitter.

Worth noting that ending the winter strikes would cost about £5 billion. Chicken feed in terms of national finances and a real lifeline to services on the edge of collapse.

Jonathan

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

I have been slowly coming to the conclusion the problem in our system must be elsewhere. We have five different parties in power one way or another at a high level in the country - Tories in London, SNP in Edinburgh, Labour in Cardiff and off and on the DUP and Sinn Fein in Belfast.

And they all seem to have in common that they are more bent than a wire coat hanger with an elephant dangling off it, and completely incapable of making intelligent decisions for the benefit of the people they’re meant to be governing.

Admittedly, that’s not a problem confined to the UK. You could say the same about most countries. France, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Poland within the EU, India, China, the Philippines, Israel, America, Mexico, Brazil…

Something is very wrong in the world right now. And I’ve no idea what it is. @BartholomewRoberts has suggested Twitter may be the problem in the past as it leads to sound bites and shot termism rather than reasoned analysis. But you could see the rot with Blair and Brown, or Chavez, Netanyahu and Sarkozy, and they predated Twitter.

Is it possible that we have more transparency today. Power has always brought with it corruption and incompetence. I am sure the post war period was no different In principle, although standards of debate and politicians seemed higher.

Thinking about it perhaps we are seeing two effects.

1. The post war generation of politicians was simply better all round, the corrupt ones wee better at being dodgy
2. There is also more transparency

The combination of both now amplifies each other.

Andy_JS

A lot of people overheat their homes. Therefore reducing the heating will improve their health. It's often healthier to sleep without the heating on.

https://www.countryliving.com/uk/wellbeing/a29840018/sleeping-central-heating-doctors-warning/

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Royale, hope she gets well soon.

Jonathan

Theuniondivvie said:

Jonathan said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Jonathan said:

I am sure it’s shows a mental weakness on my part, but I find those advocating leaving the U.K. criticising those that wanted to leave the EU (and vice versa) somewhat hypocritical.

Well, one organisation allows members to decide on continuing membership, the other doesn't. That's before one even considers the different amounts of sovereignty allowed.
As ever X is not the same as Y.

That’s true. The nationalist politics that is driving all this is very similar. Brexit folk and SNP folk should understand and perhaps sympathise with one another.

I'm a simple soul, I tend to think people who support and vote for an explicitly Brexit supporting party are Brexit folk.

'So let me be very clear: with Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU. We will not be joining the single market. We will not be joining a customs union.'

It’s a question of priorities. Is fixing Brexit our priority? It’s a decent question. It wasn’t 12 months ago. It might be now. (FWIW I want a change of government at Westminster and some focus on public services. )

Anecdotally it impacts retail politics. There was vocal criticism of Brexit in the post office queue yesterday as people struggled to complete customs declarations on Xmas presents being sent to the EU.

Jonathan

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, hope she gets well soon.

Yes. Get well soon!

Foxy

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

Inflation plus 5% would be near enough a 20% pay rise.

That's not going to happen under any administration.

See the front page of the Observer. 7 or 8% would stop the strikes and not be inflationary:

Leon

Wikkit!

Foxy

In line with what @dixiedean has been saying about lack of lunchtime supervision of school playgrounds:

https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1601556959399911424?t=SIhoP9csRRa2qZfTxYvjfQ&s=19

Jonathan

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

Foxy said:

StuartDickson said:

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

edmundintokyo said:

The 1/6 still heating their homes as much as they want are a failure of energy and/or taxation policy. The amount you heat your home should be mitigated by the fact that heating your home costs you money.

I’ve read your post six times, and I still don’t understand what you are saying. Do you mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with the aspiration to have a pleasant, comfortable interior air quality and temperature in your abode? Seems like a fairly basic foundation stone of the essence of humanity, indeed the very essence of all animal and plant life on the planet: we are all seeking a pleasant, comfortable existence.

But punishing oneself, and others, for simply existing, seems to be in the zeitgeist.

The context is that there is a policy designed to reduce gas and electricity consumption due the war with Russia. I think if 5 out of 6 people are acting on it then it is working pretty well.

The real problem here is not interior temperatures, it is the shocking state of building standards on the daft island.

In the Nordic countries we are acutely aware of the war nearby, and it is going to be between -8 and -40 in the coming days (it’s minus eight outside as I write this, and I’m cosy inside in a t-shirt). Almost none of us will be enduring interior temperatures under 18 degrees, for a wide range of reasons. But the elephant in the room is building standards. We construct incredible amounts of insulation into buildings, and triple-glazing is near universal. Not to mention that heating and hot water is built in to all rental contracts and bostadsrättsföreningar (I don’t know how to translate that*): you save zilch by turning down a radiator in most apartments.

*
https://www.thelocal.se/20200122/swedish-word-of-the-day-bostadsrttsfrening/

I agree, though at least some councils are trying to raise standards, such as this social housing in Norwich:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/09/social-housing-heating-bills-passivhaus-goldsmith-street-norwich

Local authorities don’t cut it. It requires decisive central government cultural change. The Wimpy House mindset needs to be totally crushed. As does the idiocy of building on flood plains.

The problem with the Tories is that they are quick-buck chancers, spivs and mountebanks, eager to fill the pockets of their chums on the boards of construction companies.

The problem with Labour is that they seek a pain free existence. They are essentially cowards.

The latest crap from Wes Streeting shows that there is little point in voting Labour. They are marginally better than the kleptocrats in power at present, but only by the thinnest of margins.

https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1600600873566359553?t=uamOnPdV1nbsY0sHwC9KCQ&s=19

Inflation plus 5% would be near enough a 20% pay rise.

That's not going to happen under any administration.

See the front page of the Observer. 7 or 8% would stop the strikes and not be inflationary:

The government wants the strikes. It gives them someone fresh to pin the blame on. It’s a political football

moonshine

Heathener said:

And it's actually cheaper for me to shut down the house and live in Asia through winter.

Only if you don’t need aircon. Asian countries that rely on LNG have the same cost pressures.