Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.
The trading price of a bushel of wheat may have dropped, the production cost has increased thanks to the culling of farming subsidies and of the UK's ability to make fertiliser.
Inflation is sticky and takes time to drain out of an economic system. Which is why the fight against it was so hard, historically.
Nearly everything is made in a complex series of layers of transactions. The price of a major input, energy has dropped back. This will take time to work through the layers. At the same tome you get delayed effects from secondary actions - such as pay rises caused by the inflation - popping up just as the primary cause (energy) is dropping back.
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.
As I understand it the inflation is year on year - so the prices in Jan 2022 vs Jan 2023. In the next couple of months we go past the surge in inflation last year, so the inflation rate should reduce markedly, just not quite yet.
Looking at the figures for recent months in Ireland and the UK, and there seems to be a bit of a divergence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64294885 Ministers are facing a clash with opposition and Conservative MPs over their plans to scrap EU-era laws copied over to UK law after Brexit. Under government proposals, thousands of laws are due to expire automatically after December unless specifically kept or replaced. It has prompted concerns that important legislation could lapse by accident...
One, it's an enormous waste of civil service time - yet another Brexit distraction - and two, it's an enormous legislative power grab by ministers, largely bypassing Parliamentary discussion.
Was there a sunset clause on the legislation? If not they surely can't simply remove it from the statute book?
Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.
As I understand it the inflation is year on year - so the prices in Jan 2022 vs Jan 2023. In the next couple of months we go past the surge in inflation last year, so the inflation rate should reduce markedly, just not quite yet.
Looking at the figures for recent months in Ireland and the UK, and there seems to be a bit of a divergence.
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Isn't it customary to set the timer on political hand grenades to go off after a subsequent election?
Looks like another year arguing about Brexit, ee gads.
Anecdote. I've just spent half an hour observing/supporting around 200 nurses gathered along the busy road outside my local hospital. The 'honk for fair pay' signs have been met with a cacophony of honking - I'd guess around 70% of passing drivers expressed support. Surprisingly (to me), "white-van men" were the noisiest honkers. The mood was rather buoyant, and this has been going on since 8.00 this morning. It feels like a popular, and winning campaign. If the government had any sense, it would offer somewhere near, or at, 10% and have done with it.
But, of course, the government doesn't have any sense.
Jeremy Hunt mocked over ‘Mr Bean-esque’ video explaining high inflation Chancellor Jeremy Hunt used a video set in a cafe to explain the rising cost of coffee
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
I'm torn on it. On the one hand a fantastic opportunity for remainers (and the Lib Dems in particular) to confront people with what will seem a moment of truth: "here, finally, is something the government has actually done to capitalise on Brexit: they have changed the law to allow more sewage in your rivers etc etc. Is that really what Brexit has come to?". On the other hand it shows how much damage even a lame duck government on its way out can potentially do in a couple of years. There are examples across other parts of government too including home affairs, education, the constitution and elsewhere. It also puts further distance between us and realigning with the European single market.
Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.
As I understand it the inflation is year on year - so the prices in Jan 2022 vs Jan 2023. In the next couple of months we go past the surge in inflation last year, so the inflation rate should reduce markedly, just not quite yet.
Looking at the figures for recent months in Ireland and the UK, and there seems to be a bit of a divergence.
It was a Super Puma, incidentally. ...Airbus Helicopters and Ukrainian MoI signed a contract for the supply of 21 H-225 helicopters in 2018. The first two H225 Super Puma helicopters arrived in Ukraine on December 20, 2018, after being overhauled and upgraded in Romania. ...
There's also another excellent piece by Gideon Rachman on the war.
Wouldn't any sensible Russian imperialist conclude that it would be better to cut their losses in Ukraine and try to keep hold of the Caucuses and Siberia?
Anecdote. I've just spent half an hour observing/supporting around 200 nurses gathered along the busy road outside my local hospital. The 'honk for fair pay' signs have been met with a cacophony of honking - I'd guess around 70% of passing drivers expressed support. Surprisingly (to me), "white-van men" were the noisiest honkers. The mood was rather buoyant, and this has been going on since 8.00 this morning. It feels like a popular, and winning campaign. If the government had any sense, it would offer somewhere near, or at, 10% and have done with it.
But, of course, the government doesn't have any sense.
I would imagine white van men probably have more NHS staff in their family and friend groups than most. That's the danger with them and us politics, when you lose sight of where the boundaries between the two are. For many people regardless of politics nurses will be "us", but for almost everyone the government, even a popular one, is by definition "them".
It was a Super Puma, incidentally. ...Airbus Helicopters and Ukrainian MoI signed a contract for the supply of 21 H-225 helicopters in 2018. The first two H225 Super Puma helicopters arrived in Ukraine on December 20, 2018, after being overhauled and upgraded in Romania. ...
I'd certainly want a proper investigation of the vehicle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64294885 Ministers are facing a clash with opposition and Conservative MPs over their plans to scrap EU-era laws copied over to UK law after Brexit. Under government proposals, thousands of laws are due to expire automatically after December unless specifically kept or replaced. It has prompted concerns that important legislation could lapse by accident...
One, it's an enormous waste of civil service time - yet another Brexit distraction - and two, it's an enormous legislative power grab by ministers, largely bypassing Parliamentary discussion.
Was there a sunset clause on the legislation? If not they surely can't simply remove it from the statute book?
There will be some form of enabling legislation - which is why the argument has hotted up.
Jeremy Hunt mocked over ‘Mr Bean-esque’ video explaining high inflation Chancellor Jeremy Hunt used a video set in a cafe to explain the rising cost of coffee
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Alternatively - there are a lot Brexit donors who would very much prefer that the legislation that displeased/discomfited them could be removed without their businesses joining Wetherspoons on the Boycott list of the latte-drinking classes.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
Jeremy Hunt mocked over ‘Mr Bean-esque’ video explaining high inflation Chancellor Jeremy Hunt used a video set in a cafe to explain the rising cost of coffee
Spring is round the corner: a healthy 3.3gw of solar power being generated in GB currently, an hour before the sun's zenith. That's more than coal, biomass and hydro put together and more than the 3gw we are currently exporting to France.
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
I'm torn on it. On the one hand a fantastic opportunity for remainers (and the Lib Dems in particular) to confront people with what will seem a moment of truth: "here, finally, is something the government has actually done to capitalise on Brexit: they have changed the law to allow more sewage in your rivers etc etc. Is that really what Brexit has come to?". On the other hand it shows how much damage even a lame duck government on its way out can potentially do in a couple of years. There are examples across other parts of government too including home affairs, education, the constitution and elsewhere. It also puts further distance between us and realigning with the European single market.
Problem is there are something like 4000 pieces of regulation involved, and this is going to be more of a mad scramble than a systematic review.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64294885 Ministers are facing a clash with opposition and Conservative MPs over their plans to scrap EU-era laws copied over to UK law after Brexit. Under government proposals, thousands of laws are due to expire automatically after December unless specifically kept or replaced. It has prompted concerns that important legislation could lapse by accident...
One, it's an enormous waste of civil service time - yet another Brexit distraction - and two, it's an enormous legislative power grab by ministers, largely bypassing Parliamentary discussion.
Was there a sunset clause on the legislation? If not they surely can't simply remove it from the statute book?
There will be some form of enabling legislation - which is why the argument has hotted up.
There's also another excellent piece by Gideon Rachman on the war.
Wouldn't any sensible Russian imperialist conclude that it would be better to cut their losses in Ukraine and try to keep hold of the Caucuses and Siberia?
Sensible Nationalist Irredentism?
I suggest that you read some history on irredentist movements. Mad as a box of frogs is a base condition…
The automatic April circa. 15% price increase with BT and EE will be fun.
Giffgaff tariffs are fixed to the end of 2023. When I was in Britain I had my fibre broadband from an outfit called Aquiss. 20 months with them and no price increase.
It was a Super Puma, incidentally. ...Airbus Helicopters and Ukrainian MoI signed a contract for the supply of 21 H-225 helicopters in 2018. The first two H225 Super Puma helicopters arrived in Ukraine on December 20, 2018, after being overhauled and upgraded in Romania. ...
That’s a commercial-spec helicopter, which should be fitted with FDR and CVR ‘black box’ recorder devices. Hopefully, given that the accident wasn’t in the middle of the actual fighting, they’ll be able to get the recorders out to somewhere safe, where the cause of the crash can be established.
Spring is round the corner: a healthy 3.3gw of solar power being generated in GB currently, an hour before the sun's zenith. That's more than coal, biomass and hydro put together and more than the 3gw we are currently exporting to France.
Solar noon in London is at 12:03 today. We're not on summer time.
An investigator has revealed she quit her job at the police watchdog over the handling of a complaint about the stop and search of two black athletes.
Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos were stopped by police in July 2020 while driving through west London.
The Met Police referred the case to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Trisha Napier, who assessed the actions of the officers involved, said her investigation was later "watered down", something the IOPC vehemently denies.
In an exclusive interview, she told BBC Newsnight: "It felt very odd. It felt very unusual. It upset me greatly."
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Alternatively - there are a lot Brexit donors who would very much prefer that the legislation that displeased/discomfited them could be removed without their businesses joining Wetherspoons on the Boycott list of the latte-drinking classes.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
It has to be done in one fell swoop.
Actually, Dyson was involved in the hoover power rule discussions - they were interested in a rule that was practical and universally enforced.
That’s what nearly all business want from regulation - a clear set of rules that apply to everyone.
Thames Water responded to the sewer issue by spending billions on the Super Sewer. Because they needed to hit certain targets going forward.
Sane regulation is generally welcomed by companies. Which is why the quiet environmental success of the last few decades has happened.
Across much of the developed world, regulations on emissions of various things have been quietly and incrementally tightened. This has been done, generally to match the increasing capability of new equipment and processes. So pollution in various categories has gone down, and the economy hadn’t collapsed.
An investigator has revealed she quit her job at the police watchdog over the handling of a complaint about the stop and search of two black athletes.
Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos were stopped by police in July 2020 while driving through west London.
The Met Police referred the case to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Trisha Napier, who assessed the actions of the officers involved, said her investigation was later "watered down", something the IOPC vehemently denies.
In an exclusive interview, she told BBC Newsnight: "It felt very odd. It felt very unusual. It upset me greatly."
An investigator has revealed she quit her job at the police watchdog over the handling of a complaint about the stop and search of two black athletes.
Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos were stopped by police in July 2020 while driving through west London.
The Met Police referred the case to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Trisha Napier, who assessed the actions of the officers involved, said her investigation was later "watered down", something the IOPC vehemently denies.
In an exclusive interview, she told BBC Newsnight: "It felt very odd. It felt very unusual. It upset me greatly."
The automatic April circa. 15% price increase with BT and EE will be fun.
Unless packages for new customers are similarly inflated, it will be well worth the phone call to the 'thinking of leaving us' department to negotiate it down, or a switch (even in the inflation-linked contracts there is, I think, a penalty free leaving period around the time of each increase).
An investigator has revealed she quit her job at the police watchdog over the handling of a complaint about the stop and search of two black athletes.
Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos were stopped by police in July 2020 while driving through west London.
The Met Police referred the case to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Trisha Napier, who assessed the actions of the officers involved, said her investigation was later "watered down", something the IOPC vehemently denies.
In an exclusive interview, she told BBC Newsnight: "It felt very odd. It felt very unusual. It upset me greatly."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64294885 Ministers are facing a clash with opposition and Conservative MPs over their plans to scrap EU-era laws copied over to UK law after Brexit. Under government proposals, thousands of laws are due to expire automatically after December unless specifically kept or replaced. It has prompted concerns that important legislation could lapse by accident...
One, it's an enormous waste of civil service time - yet another Brexit distraction - and two, it's an enormous legislative power grab by ministers, largely bypassing Parliamentary discussion.
Was there a sunset clause on the legislation? If not they surely can't simply remove it from the statute book?
There will be some form of enabling legislation - which is why the argument has hotted up.
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Alternatively - there are a lot Brexit donors who would very much prefer that the legislation that displeased/discomfited them could be removed without their businesses joining Wetherspoons on the Boycott list of the latte-drinking classes.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
It has to be done in one fell swoop.
Actually, Dyson was involved in the hoover power rule discussions - they were interested in a rule that was practical and universally enforced.
That’s what nearly all business want from regulation - a clear set of rules that apply to everyone.
Thames Water responded to the sewer issue by spending billions on the Super Sewer. Because they needed to hit certain targets going forward.
Sane regulation is generally welcomed by companies. Which is why the quiet environmental success of the last few decades has happened.
Across much of the developed world, regulations on emissions of various things have been quietly and incrementally tightened. This has been done, generally to match the increasing capability of new equipment and processes. So pollution in various categories has gone down, and the economy hadn’t collapsed.
There’s three basic categories of legacy EU legislation:
1. Legislation that makes sense, and should be kept.
2. Legislation that is protectionist in nature, such as the vacuum cleaner power limits, that should be evaluated. Such legislation is often categorised as ‘green’, to try and hide the protectionism.
3. Legislation that’s been gold-plated by the UK civil service, to the point where it makes no sense at all, such as the refusal to dredge rivers even if it means more flooding.
There's also another excellent piece by Gideon Rachman on the war.
Wouldn't any sensible Russian imperialist conclude that it would be better to cut their losses in Ukraine and try to keep hold of the Caucuses and Siberia?
Sensible Nationalist Irredentism?
I suggest that you read some history on irredentist movements. Mad as a box of frogs is a base condition…
Well I said imperialism. I presume a degree of pragmatism has generally helped empires survive.
The automatic April circa. 15% price increase with BT and EE will be fun.
Unless packages for new customers are similarly inflated, it will be well worth the phone call to the 'thinking of leaving us' department to negotiate it down, or a switch (even in the inflation-linked contracts there is, I think, a penalty free leaving period around the time of each increase).
I renewed my BT contract last September and I specifically referred to the April rise and I was told to ring them in March and they will mitigate the rise
I have noted the time and date and staff member to refer to if necessary
An investigator has revealed she quit her job at the police watchdog over the handling of a complaint about the stop and search of two black athletes.
Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos were stopped by police in July 2020 while driving through west London.
The Met Police referred the case to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Trisha Napier, who assessed the actions of the officers involved, said her investigation was later "watered down", something the IOPC vehemently denies.
In an exclusive interview, she told BBC Newsnight: "It felt very odd. It felt very unusual. It upset me greatly."
The automatic April circa. 15% price increase with BT and EE will be fun.
Unless packages for new customers are similarly inflated, it will be well worth the phone call to the 'thinking of leaving us' department to negotiate it down, or a switch (even in the inflation-linked contracts there is, I think, a penalty free leaving period around the time of each increase).
I renewed my BT contract last September and I specifically referred to the April rise and I was told to ring them in March and they will mitigate the rise
I have noted the time and date and staff member to refer to if necessary
Yes and reducing the price increase by 0.01% counts as mitigation.
"If you must drink at all, two drinks maximum each week is deemed low-risk by the government-backed guidance."
They can stick that where the sun does not shine along with their 14 one
The answer is surely to travel a lot. One day per week in UK (14 units), one rest day in Canada (2 drinks), weekend in Spain and Italy (both > 20), rest of week in France, Australia, Ireland (~14-18 units). Hit your weekly limits in each country. Anything consumed on flights doesn't count either. Easy
The automatic April circa. 15% price increase with BT and EE will be fun.
Unless packages for new customers are similarly inflated, it will be well worth the phone call to the 'thinking of leaving us' department to negotiate it down, or a switch (even in the inflation-linked contracts there is, I think, a penalty free leaving period around the time of each increase).
I renewed my BT contract last September and I specifically referred to the April rise and I was told to ring them in March and they will mitigate the rise
I have noted the time and date and staff member to refer to if necessary
Yes and reducing the price increase by 0.01% counts as mitigation.
The representative suggested a likely rise of a couple of pounds
The automatic April circa. 15% price increase with BT and EE will be fun.
Unless packages for new customers are similarly inflated, it will be well worth the phone call to the 'thinking of leaving us' department to negotiate it down, or a switch (even in the inflation-linked contracts there is, I think, a penalty free leaving period around the time of each increase).
I renewed my BT contract last September and I specifically referred to the April rise and I was told to ring them in March and they will mitigate the rise
I have noted the time and date and staff member to refer to if necessary
The automatic April circa. 15% price increase with BT and EE will be fun.
Unless packages for new customers are similarly inflated, it will be well worth the phone call to the 'thinking of leaving us' department to negotiate it down, or a switch (even in the inflation-linked contracts there is, I think, a penalty free leaving period around the time of each increase).
I renewed my BT contract last September and I specifically referred to the April rise and I was told to ring them in March and they will mitigate the rise
I have noted the time and date and staff member to refer to if necessary
Would be interesting to hear how you get on.
I will comment in due course as I will speak to them in March
Spring is round the corner: a healthy 3.3gw of solar power being generated in GB currently, an hour before the sun's zenith. That's more than coal, biomass and hydro put together and more than the 3gw we are currently exporting to France.
Solar noon in London is at 12:03 today. We're not on summer time.
Still, rather a lot for mid-January, no? Any idea of how this extrapolates to a sunny day in June? My BOAFP estimate is that a sunny midday in June produces about three to four times as much as a sunny midday in January. Does this seem reasonable?
The automatic April circa. 15% price increase with BT and EE will be fun.
Unless packages for new customers are similarly inflated, it will be well worth the phone call to the 'thinking of leaving us' department to negotiate it down, or a switch (even in the inflation-linked contracts there is, I think, a penalty free leaving period around the time of each increase).
I renewed my BT contract last September and I specifically referred to the April rise and I was told to ring them in March and they will mitigate the rise
I have noted the time and date and staff member to refer to if necessary
Yes and reducing the price increase by 0.01% counts as mitigation.
The representative suggested a likely rise of a couple of pounds
It is a well known tactic that regularly gets discussed and deleted on the BT Forums.
You're getting the full increase plus maybe a quid or two off.
The automatic April circa. 15% price increase with BT and EE will be fun.
Unless packages for new customers are similarly inflated, it will be well worth the phone call to the 'thinking of leaving us' department to negotiate it down, or a switch (even in the inflation-linked contracts there is, I think, a penalty free leaving period around the time of each increase).
I renewed my BT contract last September and I specifically referred to the April rise and I was told to ring them in March and they will mitigate the rise
I have noted the time and date and staff member to refer to if necessary
Yes and reducing the price increase by 0.01% counts as mitigation.
There will be a radical divergence in the markets for broadband and mobile.
Savy/well off customers will simply move. Hence the Giffgaff policy mentioned in the comments - their customers tend to be very conscious of price comparisons and many are on sim-only month-by-month setups.
Less well off people will tend to* be tied into contracts for HP of phones, for example.
*Not always the less well off. From asking, a surprising number of people who have the money to buy a phone outright are purchasing it slowly , at great cost, through a contract that locks them in for 2 years...
Spring is round the corner: a healthy 3.3gw of solar power being generated in GB currently, an hour before the sun's zenith. That's more than coal, biomass and hydro put together and more than the 3gw we are currently exporting to France.
Solar noon in London is at 12:03 today. We're not on summer time.
Still, rather a lot for mid-January, no? Any idea of how this extrapolates to a sunny day in June? My BOAFP estimate is that a sunny midday in June produces about three to four times as much as a sunny midday in January. Does this seem reasonable?
I forgot about GMT for a moment!
Max we get in June on sunny days is around 9gw. Unlike wind it's stayed fairly flat over the last few years as new solar installations have come to a grinding halt.
There are so many millions of south facing roofs in this country, not only residential but particularly commercial and industrial where getting some panels up and a reasonable amount of battery storage ought to be a no brainer.
The automatic April circa. 15% price increase with BT and EE will be fun.
Unless packages for new customers are similarly inflated, it will be well worth the phone call to the 'thinking of leaving us' department to negotiate it down, or a switch (even in the inflation-linked contracts there is, I think, a penalty free leaving period around the time of each increase).
I renewed my BT contract last September and I specifically referred to the April rise and I was told to ring them in March and they will mitigate the rise
I have noted the time and date and staff member to refer to if necessary
Yes and reducing the price increase by 0.01% counts as mitigation.
The representative suggested a likely rise of a couple of pounds
It is a well known tactic that regularly gets discussed and deleted on the BT Forums.
You're getting the full increase plus maybe a quid or two off.
I would suggest you wait until I report in March April
Anecdote. I've just spent half an hour observing/supporting around 200 nurses gathered along the busy road outside my local hospital. The 'honk for fair pay' signs have been met with a cacophony of honking - I'd guess around 70% of passing drivers expressed support. Surprisingly (to me), "white-van men" were the noisiest honkers. The mood was rather buoyant, and this has been going on since 8.00 this morning. It feels like a popular, and winning campaign. If the government had any sense, it would offer somewhere near, or at, 10% and have done with it.
But, of course, the government doesn't have any sense.
I remember an occasion during the Blair administration where I was eavesdropping a phone call on a train from a horrified civil servant to their boss where they realised they hadn't factored in Employer's NI to the budget for already-announced NHS wage increases, and how they were going to break it to all concerned.
Spring is round the corner: a healthy 3.3gw of solar power being generated in GB currently, an hour before the sun's zenith. That's more than coal, biomass and hydro put together and more than the 3gw we are currently exporting to France.
Solar noon in London is at 12:03 today. We're not on summer time.
Still, rather a lot for mid-January, no? Any idea of how this extrapolates to a sunny day in June? My BOAFP estimate is that a sunny midday in June produces about three to four times as much as a sunny midday in January. Does this seem reasonable?
We're four weeks from the winter solstice, so about 15% of the year has shorter days and a lower noon sun than today.
It's certainly a contribution that's not to be sniffed at, particularly once the grid has more storage to time-shift it to the early evening peak in demand.
There's also another excellent piece by Gideon Rachman on the war.
Wouldn't any sensible Russian imperialist conclude that it would be better to cut their losses in Ukraine and try to keep hold of the Caucuses and Siberia?
Sensible Nationalist Irredentism?
I suggest that you read some history on irredentist movements. Mad as a box of frogs is a base condition…
Isn't there a Polish group that claims the post-WWII western border and pre-WWII eastern one? It always struck me as a bit rich to try claim both.
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Alternatively - there are a lot Brexit donors who would very much prefer that the legislation that displeased/discomfited them could be removed without their businesses joining Wetherspoons on the Boycott list of the latte-drinking classes.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
It has to be done in one fell swoop.
Actually, Dyson was involved in the hoover power rule discussions - they were interested in a rule that was practical and universally enforced.
That’s what nearly all business want from regulation - a clear set of rules that apply to everyone.
Thames Water responded to the sewer issue by spending billions on the Super Sewer. Because they needed to hit certain targets going forward.
Sane regulation is generally welcomed by companies. Which is why the quiet environmental success of the last few decades has happened.
Across much of the developed world, regulations on emissions of various things have been quietly and incrementally tightened. This has been done, generally to match the increasing capability of new equipment and processes. So pollution in various categories has gone down, and the economy hadn’t collapsed.
There’s three basic categories of legacy EU legislation:
1. Legislation that makes sense, and should be kept.
2. Legislation that is protectionist in nature, such as the vacuum cleaner power limits, that should be evaluated. Such legislation is often categorised as ‘green’, to try and hide the protectionism.
3. Legislation that’s been gold-plated by the UK civil service, to the point where it makes no sense at all, such as the refusal to dredge rivers even if it means more flooding.
But, of course, as you will know from your own work on contracts in the ME, it is far too simplistic to discuss legislation in the abstract.
Often there are winners and losers. One of the (few) Brexiteer arguments I have sympathy with is that we were often out manoeuvred by corporatist interests from France or wherever during Commission regulation negotiations.
Suggesting that repealing these rules will not produce an altered landscape is quite odd. Anyway - it will all come out in the wash eventually.
There's also another excellent piece by Gideon Rachman on the war.
Wouldn't any sensible Russian imperialist conclude that it would be better to cut their losses in Ukraine and try to keep hold of the Caucuses and Siberia?
Sensible Nationalist Irredentism?
I suggest that you read some history on irredentist movements. Mad as a box of frogs is a base condition…
Isn't there a Polish group that claims the post-WWII western border and pre-WWII eastern one? It always struck me as a bit rich to try claim both.
Probably - the first rule of Irredentism Club is that any land that has ever been rumoured to be part of The Motherland is up for being claimed.
t is worth noting that in Polish ultra-nationalist circles, irredentism fell out of fashion (mostly). They went with the idea that Eastern Europeans need to band together against Russia - which means giving up all the territorial claims.
Very much enjoying the discovery that the Scottish government is completely taken by surprise that there were any issues around equality act. Haven't yet found the zip up my back, but SG obviously thinks that we all have one.
Or perhaps when Scottish women make these points to our government our high squeaky voices really are the problem, and they needed to be made in the basso profundo of the secretary of state for Scotland, all along.
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Alternatively - there are a lot Brexit donors who would very much prefer that the legislation that displeased/discomfited them could be removed without their businesses joining Wetherspoons on the Boycott list of the latte-drinking classes.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
It has to be done in one fell swoop.
Actually, Dyson was involved in the hoover power rule discussions - they were interested in a rule that was practical and universally enforced.
That’s what nearly all business want from regulation - a clear set of rules that apply to everyone.
Thames Water responded to the sewer issue by spending billions on the Super Sewer. Because they needed to hit certain targets going forward.
Sane regulation is generally welcomed by companies. Which is why the quiet environmental success of the last few decades has happened.
Across much of the developed world, regulations on emissions of various things have been quietly and incrementally tightened. This has been done, generally to match the increasing capability of new equipment and processes. So pollution in various categories has gone down, and the economy hadn’t collapsed.
There’s three basic categories of legacy EU legislation:
1. Legislation that makes sense, and should be kept.
2. Legislation that is protectionist in nature, such as the vacuum cleaner power limits, that should be evaluated. Such legislation is often categorised as ‘green’, to try and hide the protectionism.
3. Legislation that’s been gold-plated by the UK civil service, to the point where it makes no sense at all, such as the refusal to dredge rivers even if it means more flooding.
But, of course, as you will know from your own work on contracts in the ME, it is far too simplistic to discuss legislation in the abstract.
Often there are winners and losers. One of the (few) Brexiteer arguments I have sympathy with is that we were often out manoeuvred by corporatist interests from France or wherever during Commission regulation negotiations.
Suggesting that repealing these rules will not produce an altered landscape is quite odd. Anyway - it will all come out in the wash eventually.
I recall a story that went thus - as EU committee wanted to (in effect) ban small production run sports cars (and kit cars) , by getting rid of certain exemptions for safety testing.
A UK MEP (many such companies exist in the UK) pointed out that the safety data was actually really clear. What needed to be banned was rear-engined cars. As well.
The German and Italian delegations killed the whole idea before lunch
- 57% of the public think govt to blame for the dispute lasting this long. - 9% blame nurses. Rest neutral or don't know.
Quick thread: 1/ Important point when looking at strikes is whilst 8 in 10 think it is important trade unions exist to represent workers rights, public support for specific action tends to depend on who is striking.
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Alternatively - there are a lot Brexit donors who would very much prefer that the legislation that displeased/discomfited them could be removed without their businesses joining Wetherspoons on the Boycott list of the latte-drinking classes.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
It has to be done in one fell swoop.
Actually, Dyson was involved in the hoover power rule discussions - they were interested in a rule that was practical and universally enforced.
That’s what nearly all business want from regulation - a clear set of rules that apply to everyone.
Thames Water responded to the sewer issue by spending billions on the Super Sewer. Because they needed to hit certain targets going forward.
Sane regulation is generally welcomed by companies. Which is why the quiet environmental success of the last few decades has happened.
Across much of the developed world, regulations on emissions of various things have been quietly and incrementally tightened. This has been done, generally to match the increasing capability of new equipment and processes. So pollution in various categories has gone down, and the economy hadn’t collapsed.
There’s three basic categories of legacy EU legislation:
1. Legislation that makes sense, and should be kept.
2. Legislation that is protectionist in nature, such as the vacuum cleaner power limits, that should be evaluated. Such legislation is often categorised as ‘green’, to try and hide the protectionism.
3. Legislation that’s been gold-plated by the UK civil service, to the point where it makes no sense at all, such as the refusal to dredge rivers even if it means more flooding.
Agree.
I don't know if 2. is true or not but if it is I agree and I can see why it would happen with some who want to protect their own industries.
3. is one that really annoys me. Sometimes it makes sense to build on good basic rules, but sometimes they just go too far and it is ammunition to those who want to blame the EU for all the nonsense of an unnecessary rule (I'm looking at you Boris and that infamous Parliamentary Committee where Andrew Tyrie ran circles around you). That makes it doubly unhelpful.
I also think there is a British trait that maybe you don't see so much elsewhere. If we have a rule you will generally be expected to obey it regardless how silly it is in a particular circumstance and you will get a jobsworth who will enforce it. There is more shrugging of the shoulders in many European countries in such circumstances.
Spring is round the corner: a healthy 3.3gw of solar power being generated in GB currently, an hour before the sun's zenith. That's more than coal, biomass and hydro put together and more than the 3gw we are currently exporting to France.
Solar noon in London is at 12:03 today. We're not on summer time.
Still, rather a lot for mid-January, no? Any idea of how this extrapolates to a sunny day in June? My BOAFP estimate is that a sunny midday in June produces about three to four times as much as a sunny midday in January. Does this seem reasonable?
We're four weeks from the winter solstice, so about 15% of the year has shorter days and a lower noon sun than today.
It's certainly a contribution that's not to be sniffed at, particularly once the grid has more storage to time-shift it to the early evening peak in demand.
Solar is so dirt cheap now too - cheaper watt for watt than wind even in the UK I think - that it really ought to be getting rolled out on a decentralised basis everywhere possible. One area where government subsidy could pay for itself given the cost of the energy price guarantee.
Particularly useful in summer when the wind isn't blowing, and as you say doubly useful with increasing EV usage and battery storage.
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Alternatively - there are a lot Brexit donors who would very much prefer that the legislation that displeased/discomfited them could be removed without their businesses joining Wetherspoons on the Boycott list of the latte-drinking classes.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
It has to be done in one fell swoop.
Actually, Dyson was involved in the hoover power rule discussions - they were interested in a rule that was practical and universally enforced.
That’s what nearly all business want from regulation - a clear set of rules that apply to everyone.
Thames Water responded to the sewer issue by spending billions on the Super Sewer. Because they needed to hit certain targets going forward.
Sane regulation is generally welcomed by companies. Which is why the quiet environmental success of the last few decades has happened.
Across much of the developed world, regulations on emissions of various things have been quietly and incrementally tightened. This has been done, generally to match the increasing capability of new equipment and processes. So pollution in various categories has gone down, and the economy hadn’t collapsed.
There’s three basic categories of legacy EU legislation:
1. Legislation that makes sense, and should be kept.
2. Legislation that is protectionist in nature, such as the vacuum cleaner power limits, that should be evaluated. Such legislation is often categorised as ‘green’, to try and hide the protectionism.
3. Legislation that’s been gold-plated by the UK civil service, to the point where it makes no sense at all, such as the refusal to dredge rivers even if it means more flooding.
But, of course, as you will know from your own work on contracts in the ME, it is far too simplistic to discuss legislation in the abstract.
Often there are winners and losers. One of the (few) Brexiteer arguments I have sympathy with is that we were often out manoeuvred by corporatist interests from France or wherever during Commission regulation negotiations.
Suggesting that repealing these rules will not produce an altered landscape is quite odd. Anyway - it will all come out in the wash eventually.
I recall a story that went thus - as EU committee wanted to (in effect) ban small production run sports cars (and kit cars) , by getting rid of certain exemptions for safety testing.
A UK MEP (many such companies exist in the UK) pointed out that the safety data was actually really clear. What needed to be banned was rear-engined cars. As well.
The German and Italian delegations killed the whole idea before lunch
Yes, a lot of the “safety’ or ‘environmental’ legislation, came straight from European industry lobby groups trying to stifle mostly Asian competition.
There’s a load of this around, mostly written to protect certain EU industries that don’t exist in the UK, which can safely be dropped by the UK without adverse effects.
More difficult is the political management of such repealing, by vested interests who think that more legislation is always better. Mostly, it’s better for producers and not consumers.
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Alternatively - there are a lot Brexit donors who would very much prefer that the legislation that displeased/discomfited them could be removed without their businesses joining Wetherspoons on the Boycott list of the latte-drinking classes.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
It has to be done in one fell swoop.
Actually, Dyson was involved in the hoover power rule discussions - they were interested in a rule that was practical and universally enforced.
That’s what nearly all business want from regulation - a clear set of rules that apply to everyone.
Thames Water responded to the sewer issue by spending billions on the Super Sewer. Because they needed to hit certain targets going forward.
Sane regulation is generally welcomed by companies. Which is why the quiet environmental success of the last few decades has happened.
Across much of the developed world, regulations on emissions of various things have been quietly and incrementally tightened. This has been done, generally to match the increasing capability of new equipment and processes. So pollution in various categories has gone down, and the economy hadn’t collapsed.
There’s three basic categories of legacy EU legislation:
1. Legislation that makes sense, and should be kept.
2. Legislation that is protectionist in nature, such as the vacuum cleaner power limits, that should be evaluated. Such legislation is often categorised as ‘green’, to try and hide the protectionism.
3. Legislation that’s been gold-plated by the UK civil service, to the point where it makes no sense at all, such as the refusal to dredge rivers even if it means more flooding.
But, of course, as you will know from your own work on contracts in the ME, it is far too simplistic to discuss legislation in the abstract.
Often there are winners and losers. One of the (few) Brexiteer arguments I have sympathy with is that we were often out manoeuvred by corporatist interests from France or wherever during Commission regulation negotiations.
Suggesting that repealing these rules will not produce an altered landscape is quite odd. Anyway - it will all come out in the wash eventually.
I recall a story that went thus - as EU committee wanted to (in effect) ban small production run sports cars (and kit cars) , by getting rid of certain exemptions for safety testing.
A UK MEP (many such companies exist in the UK) pointed out that the safety data was actually really clear. What needed to be banned was rear-engined cars. As well.
The German and Italian delegations killed the whole idea before lunch
There hasn't been an Italian rear engined car since the Fiat 126 went out of production in the 80s so why did they give a fuck?
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Alternatively - there are a lot Brexit donors who would very much prefer that the legislation that displeased/discomfited them could be removed without their businesses joining Wetherspoons on the Boycott list of the latte-drinking classes.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
It has to be done in one fell swoop.
Actually, Dyson was involved in the hoover power rule discussions - they were interested in a rule that was practical and universally enforced.
That’s what nearly all business want from regulation - a clear set of rules that apply to everyone.
Thames Water responded to the sewer issue by spending billions on the Super Sewer. Because they needed to hit certain targets going forward.
Sane regulation is generally welcomed by companies. Which is why the quiet environmental success of the last few decades has happened.
Across much of the developed world, regulations on emissions of various things have been quietly and incrementally tightened. This has been done, generally to match the increasing capability of new equipment and processes. So pollution in various categories has gone down, and the economy hadn’t collapsed.
There’s three basic categories of legacy EU legislation:
1. Legislation that makes sense, and should be kept.
2. Legislation that is protectionist in nature, such as the vacuum cleaner power limits, that should be evaluated. Such legislation is often categorised as ‘green’, to try and hide the protectionism.
3. Legislation that’s been gold-plated by the UK civil service, to the point where it makes no sense at all, such as the refusal to dredge rivers even if it means more flooding.
But, of course, as you will know from your own work on contracts in the ME, it is far too simplistic to discuss legislation in the abstract.
Often there are winners and losers. One of the (few) Brexiteer arguments I have sympathy with is that we were often out manoeuvred by corporatist interests from France or wherever during Commission regulation negotiations.
Suggesting that repealing these rules will not produce an altered landscape is quite odd. Anyway - it will all come out in the wash eventually.
I recall a story that went thus - as EU committee wanted to (in effect) ban small production run sports cars (and kit cars) , by getting rid of certain exemptions for safety testing.
A UK MEP (many such companies exist in the UK) pointed out that the safety data was actually really clear. What needed to be banned was rear-engined cars. As well.
The German and Italian delegations killed the whole idea before lunch
There hasn't been an Italian rear engined car since the Fiat 126 went out of production in the 80s so why did they give a fuck?
I would have thought Ferrari (as a start) would be upset at the banning of rear engined cars….
Possibly a bit disappointing for @LibDems and @UKLabour, who need a fair bit of tactical voting to knock a few holes in the so-called 'Blue Wall'? Maybe @EdwardJDavey needs a bigger orange mallet?
...I'll try again having botched and been timed out on the previous edit.
Perhaps not.
43% would easily cover the GE19 Labour vote in a lot of these blue wall places
Many GE19 Con -> LDs will regard themselves as switchers rather than tactical voters. GE19 LDs will mostly stick LD and will not regard it as tactical. So, a lot of the tactical bit is likely to be GE17/19 Lab to LD switching.
43% seems substantial given the different thought processes that might be at play.
And that survey is of all voters, not just anti-Tory voters. People who voted for the Tories for fear of Corbyn and extreme left-wing Labour probably saw that as a tactical vote, and as fear of Labour subsides are now less willing to do so again. Similarly, people who backed the Tories to get Brexit done.
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Alternatively - there are a lot Brexit donors who would very much prefer that the legislation that displeased/discomfited them could be removed without their businesses joining Wetherspoons on the Boycott list of the latte-drinking classes.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
It has to be done in one fell swoop.
Actually, Dyson was involved in the hoover power rule discussions - they were interested in a rule that was practical and universally enforced.
That’s what nearly all business want from regulation - a clear set of rules that apply to everyone.
Thames Water responded to the sewer issue by spending billions on the Super Sewer. Because they needed to hit certain targets going forward.
Sane regulation is generally welcomed by companies. Which is why the quiet environmental success of the last few decades has happened.
Across much of the developed world, regulations on emissions of various things have been quietly and incrementally tightened. This has been done, generally to match the increasing capability of new equipment and processes. So pollution in various categories has gone down, and the economy hadn’t collapsed.
There’s three basic categories of legacy EU legislation:
1. Legislation that makes sense, and should be kept.
2. Legislation that is protectionist in nature, such as the vacuum cleaner power limits, that should be evaluated. Such legislation is often categorised as ‘green’, to try and hide the protectionism.
3. Legislation that’s been gold-plated by the UK civil service, to the point where it makes no sense at all, such as the refusal to dredge rivers even if it means more flooding.
But, of course, as you will know from your own work on contracts in the ME, it is far too simplistic to discuss legislation in the abstract.
Often there are winners and losers. One of the (few) Brexiteer arguments I have sympathy with is that we were often out manoeuvred by corporatist interests from France or wherever during Commission regulation negotiations.
Suggesting that repealing these rules will not produce an altered landscape is quite odd. Anyway - it will all come out in the wash eventually.
I recall a story that went thus - as EU committee wanted to (in effect) ban small production run sports cars (and kit cars) , by getting rid of certain exemptions for safety testing.
A UK MEP (many such companies exist in the UK) pointed out that the safety data was actually really clear. What needed to be banned was rear-engined cars. As well.
The German and Italian delegations killed the whole idea before lunch
Yes, a lot of the “safety’ or ‘environmental’ legislation, came straight from European industry lobby groups trying to stifle mostly Asian competition.
There’s a load of this around, mostly written to protect certain EU industries that don’t exist in the UK, which can safely be dropped by the UK without adverse effects.
More difficult is the political management of such repealing, by vested interests who think that more legislation is always better. Mostly, it’s better for producers and not consumers.
I wouldn't say lots. But knowing how that game is played is important. And one where the UK representatives in Brussels often seemed blind and deaf,
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Alternatively - there are a lot Brexit donors who would very much prefer that the legislation that displeased/discomfited them could be removed without their businesses joining Wetherspoons on the Boycott list of the latte-drinking classes.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
It has to be done in one fell swoop.
Actually, Dyson was involved in the hoover power rule discussions - they were interested in a rule that was practical and universally enforced.
That’s what nearly all business want from regulation - a clear set of rules that apply to everyone.
Thames Water responded to the sewer issue by spending billions on the Super Sewer. Because they needed to hit certain targets going forward.
Sane regulation is generally welcomed by companies. Which is why the quiet environmental success of the last few decades has happened.
Across much of the developed world, regulations on emissions of various things have been quietly and incrementally tightened. This has been done, generally to match the increasing capability of new equipment and processes. So pollution in various categories has gone down, and the economy hadn’t collapsed.
There’s three basic categories of legacy EU legislation:
1. Legislation that makes sense, and should be kept.
2. Legislation that is protectionist in nature, such as the vacuum cleaner power limits, that should be evaluated. Such legislation is often categorised as ‘green’, to try and hide the protectionism.
3. Legislation that’s been gold-plated by the UK civil service, to the point where it makes no sense at all, such as the refusal to dredge rivers even if it means more flooding.
But, of course, as you will know from your own work on contracts in the ME, it is far too simplistic to discuss legislation in the abstract.
Often there are winners and losers. One of the (few) Brexiteer arguments I have sympathy with is that we were often out manoeuvred by corporatist interests from France or wherever during Commission regulation negotiations.
Suggesting that repealing these rules will not produce an altered landscape is quite odd. Anyway - it will all come out in the wash eventually.
I recall a story that went thus - as EU committee wanted to (in effect) ban small production run sports cars (and kit cars) , by getting rid of certain exemptions for safety testing.
A UK MEP (many such companies exist in the UK) pointed out that the safety data was actually really clear. What needed to be banned was rear-engined cars. As well.
The German and Italian delegations killed the whole idea before lunch
There hasn't been an Italian rear engined car since the Fiat 126 went out of production in the 80s so why did they give a fuck?
I would have thought Ferrari (as a start) would be upset at the banning of rear engined cars….
All modern Ferraris are front or mid engined (engine ahead of the rear axle) not rear engined (engine behind the rear axle).
Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.
In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.
Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
It's going to be a shithow, I think. There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit) The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this. Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Alternatively - there are a lot Brexit donors who would very much prefer that the legislation that displeased/discomfited them could be removed without their businesses joining Wetherspoons on the Boycott list of the latte-drinking classes.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
It has to be done in one fell swoop.
Actually, Dyson was involved in the hoover power rule discussions - they were interested in a rule that was practical and universally enforced.
That’s what nearly all business want from regulation - a clear set of rules that apply to everyone.
Thames Water responded to the sewer issue by spending billions on the Super Sewer. Because they needed to hit certain targets going forward.
Sane regulation is generally welcomed by companies. Which is why the quiet environmental success of the last few decades has happened.
Across much of the developed world, regulations on emissions of various things have been quietly and incrementally tightened. This has been done, generally to match the increasing capability of new equipment and processes. So pollution in various categories has gone down, and the economy hadn’t collapsed.
There’s three basic categories of legacy EU legislation:
1. Legislation that makes sense, and should be kept.
2. Legislation that is protectionist in nature, such as the vacuum cleaner power limits, that should be evaluated. Such legislation is often categorised as ‘green’, to try and hide the protectionism.
3. Legislation that’s been gold-plated by the UK civil service, to the point where it makes no sense at all, such as the refusal to dredge rivers even if it means more flooding.
But, of course, as you will know from your own work on contracts in the ME, it is far too simplistic to discuss legislation in the abstract.
Often there are winners and losers. One of the (few) Brexiteer arguments I have sympathy with is that we were often out manoeuvred by corporatist interests from France or wherever during Commission regulation negotiations.
Suggesting that repealing these rules will not produce an altered landscape is quite odd. Anyway - it will all come out in the wash eventually.
I recall a story that went thus - as EU committee wanted to (in effect) ban small production run sports cars (and kit cars) , by getting rid of certain exemptions for safety testing.
A UK MEP (many such companies exist in the UK) pointed out that the safety data was actually really clear. What needed to be banned was rear-engined cars. As well.
The German and Italian delegations killed the whole idea before lunch
There hasn't been an Italian rear engined car since the Fiat 126 went out of production in the 80s so why did they give a fuck?
I would have thought Ferrari (as a start) would be upset at the banning of rear engined cars….
All modern Ferraris are front or mid engined (engine ahead of the rear axle) not rear engined (engine behind the rear axle).
Depends on if the proposal caught mid engined cars, then - it was in Private Eye a number of years back as an example of the Brussels game.
Comments
Nearly everything is made in a complex series of layers of transactions. The price of a major input, energy has dropped back. This will take time to work through the layers. At the same tome you get delayed effects from secondary actions - such as pay rises caused by the inflation - popping up just as the primary cause (energy) is dropping back.
There simply isn't time properly to review the amount of legislation due to automatically disappear at the year end unless explicitly reprieved.
(edit)
The s35 maximalists upthread don't seem exercised in the slightest by this.
Some of the EU laws affect areas areas governed by ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the UK government is yet to publish a breakdown...
Looks like another year arguing about Brexit, ee gads.
But, of course, the government doesn't have any sense.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt used a video set in a cafe to explain the rising cost of coffee
Here is the video: https://twitter.com/hmtreasury/status/1615610241361534977
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1615655007189098497
It was a Super Puma, incidentally.
...Airbus Helicopters and Ukrainian MoI signed a contract for the supply of 21 H-225 helicopters in 2018. The first two H225 Super Puma helicopters arrived in Ukraine on December 20, 2018, after being overhauled and upgraded in Romania. ...
Wouldn't any sensible Russian imperialist conclude that it would be better to cut their losses in Ukraine and try to keep hold of the Caucuses and Siberia?
I've had to explain the same things to a number of well educated people.
Does Dyson want to talk about hoover power calculations?
Do the privately owned water companies want to talk about discharging sewage?
The eco rules and financial transparency rules affecting the City?
It has to be done in one fell swoop.
You know who also passed an enabling act?
I suggest that you read some history on irredentist movements. Mad as a box of frogs is a base condition…
I think it's more widespread than just EE and BT
An investigator has revealed she quit her job at the police watchdog over the handling of a complaint about the stop and search of two black athletes.
Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos were stopped by police in July 2020 while driving through west London.
The Met Police referred the case to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Trisha Napier, who assessed the actions of the officers involved, said her investigation was later "watered down", something the IOPC vehemently denies.
In an exclusive interview, she told BBC Newsnight: "It felt very odd. It felt very unusual. It upset me greatly."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64304500
That’s what nearly all business want from regulation - a clear set of rules that apply to everyone.
Thames Water responded to the sewer issue by spending billions on the Super Sewer. Because they needed to hit certain targets going forward.
Sane regulation is generally welcomed by companies. Which is why the quiet environmental success of the last few decades has happened.
Across much of the developed world, regulations on emissions of various things have been quietly and incrementally tightened. This has been done, generally to match the increasing capability of new equipment and processes. So pollution in various categories has gone down, and the economy hadn’t collapsed.
1. Legislation that makes sense, and should be kept.
2. Legislation that is protectionist in nature, such as the vacuum cleaner power limits, that should be evaluated. Such legislation is often categorised as ‘green’, to try and hide the protectionism.
3. Legislation that’s been gold-plated by the UK civil service, to the point where it makes no sense at all, such as the refusal to dredge rivers even if it means more flooding.
I have noted the time and date and staff member to refer to if necessary
Loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing?
"All suspects are guilty. Period. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect, would they?"
See this documentary - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNhPHWCNuoQ
You're getting the full increase plus maybe a quid or two off.
Savy/well off customers will simply move. Hence the Giffgaff policy mentioned in the comments - their customers tend to be very conscious of price comparisons and many are on sim-only month-by-month setups.
Less well off people will tend to* be tied into contracts for HP of phones, for example.
*Not always the less well off. From asking, a surprising number of people who have the money to buy a phone outright are purchasing it slowly , at great cost, through a contract that locks them in for 2 years...
Max we get in June on sunny days is around 9gw. Unlike wind it's stayed fairly flat over the last few years as new solar installations have come to a grinding halt.
There are so many millions of south facing roofs in this country, not only residential but particularly commercial and industrial where getting some panels up and a reasonable amount of battery storage ought to be a no brainer.
It's certainly a contribution that's not to be sniffed at, particularly once the grid has more storage to time-shift it to the early evening peak in demand.
Often there are winners and losers. One of the (few) Brexiteer arguments I have sympathy with is that we were often out manoeuvred by corporatist interests from France or wherever during Commission regulation negotiations.
Suggesting that repealing these rules will not produce an altered landscape is quite odd. Anyway - it will all come out in the wash eventually.
t is worth noting that in Polish ultra-nationalist circles, irredentism fell out of fashion (mostly). They went with the idea that Eastern Europeans need to band together against Russia - which means giving up all the territorial claims.
Or perhaps when Scottish women make these points to our government our high squeaky voices really are the problem, and they needed to be made in the basso profundo of the secretary of state for Scotland, all along.
https://twitter.com/LucyHunterB/status/1615689934899380224
A UK MEP (many such companies exist in the UK) pointed out that the safety data was actually really clear. What needed to be banned was rear-engined cars. As well.
The German and Italian delegations killed the whole idea before lunch
- 57% of the public think govt to blame for the dispute lasting this long.
- 9% blame nurses. Rest neutral or don't know.
Quick thread:
1/ Important point when looking at strikes is whilst 8 in 10 think it is important trade unions exist to represent workers rights, public support for specific action tends to depend on who is striking.
Doctors, teachers pretty well supported. Others less so.
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1615692676895997952
I don't know if 2. is true or not but if it is I agree and I can see why it would happen with some who want to protect their own industries.
3. is one that really annoys me. Sometimes it makes sense to build on good basic rules, but sometimes they just go too far and it is ammunition to those who want to blame the EU for all the nonsense of an unnecessary rule (I'm looking at you Boris and that infamous Parliamentary Committee where Andrew Tyrie ran circles around you). That makes it doubly unhelpful.
I also think there is a British trait that maybe you don't see so much elsewhere. If we have a rule you will generally be expected to obey it regardless how silly it is in a particular circumstance and you will get a jobsworth who will enforce it. There is more shrugging of the shoulders in many European countries in such circumstances.
Particularly useful in summer when the wind isn't blowing, and as you say doubly useful with increasing EV usage and battery storage.
There’s a load of this around, mostly written to protect certain EU industries that don’t exist in the UK, which can safely be dropped by the UK without adverse effects.
More difficult is the political management of such repealing, by vested interests who think that more legislation is always better. Mostly, it’s better for producers and not consumers.