@andreajenkyns Sad to see @DominicRaab leave gov. PM should have backed him. I was Dom's PPS when he was Housing Minister & saw his commitment, grasp of the brief, was always curtious & honest. This has set a dangerous precident. I previously backed him for leader as he is a true Thacherite.
What did he achieve at housing ?
And is ‘curtious’ the opposite of courteous ?
We have had 15 Housing Ministers since 2010. The idea is that none of them are there long enough to achieve anything beyond the status quo.
The other thing that really surprises me is just how awful the government response has been to the relentless reports of raw sewage being poured into our rivers and seas. That may or may not have a Brexit element to it - I don't know - but it is allowing the narrative to build that it does. It's also incredibly damaging politically. Again down here in Sidders it is a massive topic of local conversation in the local paper and on message boards etc. It's also being highlighted in all the campaign leaflets we are getting. I can't help thinking it is an absolute gift for the LibDems, who won the by-election next door last year, of course. If I were Rishi I would add it to my pledges pronto and be seen to be doing something about it. It is a very Blue Wall issue.
I entirely agree with that. It’s about as basic as politics gets. Shit is pouring into our rivers and seas and people are - rightly - not happy
It is being blamed in part on Brexit, in part on immigration (with who knows how much justification) and very much on the government. It seems to sum up the sense of Britain getting poorer and shabbier. They should be acting fast. It does not feel like they are
Does anyone know why it has suddenly become a salient issue? It must've been going on for years. And will take decades to fix.
Gone fishing? Wild Isles? Feargal Sharkey?
It's a decreasing problem, in decade terms. Two reasons:
1. It actually increased in 2021 - weather related, apparently 2. The government has mandated sensors be put on all sewage outflows to detect how many hours they are in use. This allows unscrupulous or dim journalists to say the problem is getting worse because there is data now.
It's a really good issue for opposition parties: the public really do seem to believe we didn't used to have any sewage outflows...
.,.and that it can fixed by the investment of just a few pounds.
Hahaha. I read that brutal review of Jolyon Maugham’s book, the first line of which @BlancheLivermore quotes upthread
Maugham has made the fatal error of responding angrily and tearfully on Twitter, thereby proving that he is hurt. Never respond to bad reviews. Tsk
Lesson learned the hard way? By a friend of yours of course.
It’s a lesson every journalist or author learns early on. Nothing unique to me. You just don’t do it. I’ve heard some hair raising examples of writers responding so badly to poor reviews they’ve jeopardised their careers
And Maugham has done a particularly fine job by responding to the accusation that he is a pompous bloviator by…. Pompously bloviating
Reminds of Bercow blowing up and lashing out hysterically to prove how he never blows up or lashes out hysterically.
Remember that historian of Russia who would leave negative Amazon reviews under rivals? So petty.
Orlando Figes. And then he blamed his wife!
The weird thing is that he is - by many accounts - a fine writer
Anne Rice went postal on some reviewers of one of her books - especially those suggesting it needed editing.
Her screed was several pages and definitely needed editing.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
I am off to Ayr for the Scottish National meeting today , for the big race at 3:35 I am looking at Kitty's Light and Your own Story Good luck to anyone having a flutter
Maugham is now being brutally mocked by J K Rowling. Enjoyable
I do have quite a bit of sympathy. It is why my involvement in politics has always been as an activist and not a candidate. I don't think I could cope with flack, particularly the undeserved.
Regarding the reviews of your books - If and when you get a bad one have you always had a thick skin or did you have to grow one? Do you get upset at all or is it just water off a ducks back? Interested to know.
How would Leon know? His stalker Sean T might but then he’s never had a bad review for his outstanding books I believe.
The world of flint dildo design critics is vicious and internecine
Consider the impacts if there's a problem with one - a lot at stake here.
I think people are overestimating how much people care about local elections, or how much difference a leaflet makes.
FWIW, I've received 2 Tory and 2 Lib Dem but I don't think anyone cares.
I expect a fairly low turnout. And, I don't think it will tell us very much meaningfully about next year.
Turnout in locals I believe is usually around a third. I think in a genuine uncertain situation you might get a few votes from leaflets where one side bothered, I've factored that in before, and another did not, but I suspect it is marginal.
Activists want to believe their efforts make a significant difference but I fear that may only really be the case with independents, where the leaflet hits someone with no preconceptions. Parties we go by national and local news.
In close target wards in local elections though leafletting, canvassing, effective GOTV etc is important though and can make the difference. Even more so than general elections as the candidate is more important and the margin of victory often cones down to a few hundred or less than a hundred votes
The other thing that really surprises me is just how awful the government response has been to the relentless reports of raw sewage being poured into our rivers and seas. That may or may not have a Brexit element to it - I don't know - but it is allowing the narrative to build that it does. It's also incredibly damaging politically. Again down here in Sidders it is a massive topic of local conversation in the local paper and on message boards etc. It's also being highlighted in all the campaign leaflets we are getting. I can't help thinking it is an absolute gift for the LibDems, who won the by-election next door last year, of course. If I were Rishi I would add it to my pledges pronto and be seen to be doing something about it. It is a very Blue Wall issue.
I entirely agree with that. It’s about as basic as politics gets. Shit is pouring into our rivers and seas and people are - rightly - not happy
It is being blamed in part on Brexit, in part on immigration (with who knows how much justification) and very much on the government. It seems to sum up the sense of Britain getting poorer and shabbier. They should be acting fast. It does not feel like they are
Does anyone know why it has suddenly become a salient issue? It must've been going on for years. And will take decades to fix.
Gone fishing? Wild Isles? Feargal Sharkey?
It's a decreasing problem, in decade terms. Two reasons:
1. It actually increased in 2021 - weather related, apparently 2. The government has mandated sensors be put on all sewage outflows to detect how many hours they are in use. This allows unscrupulous or dim journalists to say the problem is getting worse because there is data now.
It's a really good issue for opposition parties: the public really do seem to believe we didn't used to have any sewage outflows...
.,.and that it can fixed by the investment of just a few pounds.
As another poster says above, the lack of government rebuttal seems astonishing.
I think people are overestimating how much people care about local elections, or how much difference a leaflet makes.
FWIW, I've received 2 Tory and 2 Lib Dem but I don't think anyone cares.
I expect a fairly low turnout. And, I don't think it will tell us very much meaningfully about next year.
Turnout in locals I believe is usually around a third. I think in a genuine uncertain situation you might get a few votes from leaflets where one side bothered, I've factored that in before, and another did not, but I suspect it is marginal.
Activists want to believe their efforts make a significant difference but I fear that may only really be the case with independents, where the leaflet hits someone with no preconceptions. Parties we go by national and local news.
In close target wards in local elections though leafletting, canvassing, effective GOTV etc is important though and can make the difference. Even more so than general elections as the candidate is more important and the margin of victory often cones down to a few hundred or less than a hundred votes
Yes, genuinely close contests and locals it can get you over the top. But sadly that emphasises that in most places and in most times it wont.
The other thing that really surprises me is just how awful the government response has been to the relentless reports of raw sewage being poured into our rivers and seas. That may or may not have a Brexit element to it - I don't know - but it is allowing the narrative to build that it does. It's also incredibly damaging politically. Again down here in Sidders it is a massive topic of local conversation in the local paper and on message boards etc. It's also being highlighted in all the campaign leaflets we are getting. I can't help thinking it is an absolute gift for the LibDems, who won the by-election next door last year, of course. If I were Rishi I would add it to my pledges pronto and be seen to be doing something about it. It is a very Blue Wall issue.
I entirely agree with that. It’s about as basic as politics gets. Shit is pouring into our rivers and seas and people are - rightly - not happy
It is being blamed in part on Brexit, in part on immigration (with who knows how much justification) and very much on the government. It seems to sum up the sense of Britain getting poorer and shabbier. They should be acting fast. It does not feel like they are
Does anyone know why it has suddenly become a salient issue? It must've been going on for years. And will take decades to fix.
Gone fishing? Wild Isles? Feargal Sharkey?
It's a decreasing problem, in decade terms. Two reasons:
1. It actually increased in 2021 - weather related, apparently 2. The government has mandated sensors be put on all sewage outflows to detect how many hours they are in use. This allows unscrupulous or dim journalists to say the problem is getting worse because there is data now.
It's a really good issue for opposition parties: the public really do seem to believe we didn't used to have any sewage outflows...
.,.and that it can fixed by the investment of just a few pounds.
It will need an awful lot of investment. There is Good News! 1. Water companies are extraordinarily profitable. An ocean of money they can invest to clear 30 years of infrastructure investment backlog. 2. It is a regulated sector. So simply direct the water companies to do the work. Some of the companies will not want to, and other companies will spring up, happy to drink from the guaranteed flow of money dripping out of the shiny new pipes they lay.
Hahaha. I read that brutal review of Jolyon Maugham’s book, the first line of which @BlancheLivermore quotes upthread
Maugham has made the fatal error of responding angrily and tearfully on Twitter, thereby proving that he is hurt. Never respond to bad reviews. Tsk
Lesson learned the hard way? By a friend of yours of course.
It’s a lesson every journalist or author learns early on. Nothing unique to me. You just don’t do it. I’ve heard some hair raising examples of writers responding so badly to poor reviews they’ve jeopardised their careers
And Maugham has done a particularly fine job by responding to the accusation that he is a pompous bloviator by…. Pompously bloviating
Reminds of Bercow blowing up and lashing out hysterically to prove how he never blows up or lashes out hysterically.
Remember that historian of Russia who would leave negative Amazon reviews under rivals? So petty.
Orlando Figes. And then he blamed his wife!
The weird thing is that he is - by many accounts - a fine writer
Anne Rice went postal on some reviewers of one of her books - especially those suggesting it needed editing.
Her screed was several pages and definitely needed editing.
The original reason Kate Clanchy got into trouble was because she responded angrily and mendaciously to some critiques. Just don’t do it!
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
Ordinarily I am very suspicious of reboots and remakes - why not create something new? In this case though, its a good thing.
Two reasons - the franchise remains hugely popular. The films are quite old now, so relaunching it for a new generation has some merit.
More fundamentally, the films were stymied at the start by Chris fucking Columbus making some stupid decisions which hampered the rest of the films. Making Ron an idiot, making it all saccharine and small child friendly, hiding the darkness that clearly was hanging over everything.
A remake that has some umph from the start would be fun.
The other thing that really surprises me is just how awful the government response has been to the relentless reports of raw sewage being poured into our rivers and seas. That may or may not have a Brexit element to it - I don't know - but it is allowing the narrative to build that it does. It's also incredibly damaging politically. Again down here in Sidders it is a massive topic of local conversation in the local paper and on message boards etc. It's also being highlighted in all the campaign leaflets we are getting. I can't help thinking it is an absolute gift for the LibDems, who won the by-election next door last year, of course. If I were Rishi I would add it to my pledges pronto and be seen to be doing something about it. It is a very Blue Wall issue.
I entirely agree with that. It’s about as basic as politics gets. Shit is pouring into our rivers and seas and people are - rightly - not happy
It is being blamed in part on Brexit, in part on immigration (with who knows how much justification) and very much on the government. It seems to sum up the sense of Britain getting poorer and shabbier. They should be acting fast. It does not feel like they are
Does anyone know why it has suddenly become a salient issue? It must've been going on for years. And will take decades to fix.
Gone fishing? Wild Isles? Feargal Sharkey?
It's a decreasing problem, in decade terms. Two reasons:
1. It actually increased in 2021 - weather related, apparently 2. The government has mandated sensors be put on all sewage outflows to detect how many hours they are in use. This allows unscrupulous or dim journalists to say the problem is getting worse because there is data now.
It's a really good issue for opposition parties: the public really do seem to believe we didn't used to have any sewage outflows...
It’s also an underinvestment problem. I remember much discussion about the problems of infrastructure, including a reliance on Victorian legacy systems, at the time of privatisation. Several decades of unduly light regulation have allowed the problem to persist and grow. If we’d started earlier, the extra annual burden wouldn’t have been that great, and we’d be in a far better position.
Yet another example of why you should plan long term for long term problems. Stuff that can’t be done in a couple if electoral cycles still needs doing.
Hahaha. I read that brutal review of Jolyon Maugham’s book, the first line of which @BlancheLivermore quotes upthread
Maugham has made the fatal error of responding angrily and tearfully on Twitter, thereby proving that he is hurt. Never respond to bad reviews. Tsk
Lesson learned the hard way? By a friend of yours of course.
It’s a lesson every journalist or author learns early on. Nothing unique to me. You just don’t do it. I’ve heard some hair raising examples of writers responding so badly to poor reviews they’ve jeopardised their careers
And Maugham has done a particularly fine job by responding to the accusation that he is a pompous bloviator by…. Pompously bloviating
Reminds of Bercow blowing up and lashing out hysterically to prove how he never blows up or lashes out hysterically.
Remember that historian of Russia who would leave negative Amazon reviews under rivals? So petty.
Orlando Figes. And then he blamed his wife!
The weird thing is that he is - by many accounts - a fine writer
Anne Rice went postal on some reviewers of one of her books - especially those suggesting it needed editing.
Her screed was several pages and definitely needed editing.
Jeanette Winterson once went round to physically confront and menace someone who gave her a bad review. Like: literally finding their home and knocking angrily on the door
Her reputation took a permanent knock, in the industry
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
Ordinarily I am very suspicious of reboots and remakes - why not create something new? In this case though, its a good thing.
Two reasons - the franchise remains hugely popular. The films are quite old now, so relaunching it for a new generation has some merit.
More fundamentally, the films were stymied at the start by Chris fucking Columbus making some stupid decisions which hampered the rest of the films. Making Ron an idiot, making it all saccharine and small child friendly, hiding the darkness that clearly was hanging over everything.
A remake that has some umph from the start would be fun.
The TV show format suits something like Harry Potter as well because it's set in school years and some of the most loved bits of the books aren't necessarily the big action sequences producers try and fit into a 2h movie. There's a lot of world building that can be accomplished over a 10 episode season that is impossible to do over that 2h movie slot.
The TV show format suits something like Harry Potter as well because it's set in school years and some of the most loved bits of the books aren't necessarily the big action sequences producers try and fit into a 2h movie. There's a lot of world building that can be accomplished over a 10 episode season that is impossible to do over that 2h movie slot.
Maybe this time they will cast someone as Harry who can act...
As I predicted yesterday, the good law project looks like they will be helping the two prisoners of conscience, their words not mine, jailed after the dartford crossing protest.
The TV show format suits something like Harry Potter as well because it's set in school years and some of the most loved bits of the books aren't necessarily the big action sequences producers try and fit into a 2h movie. There's a lot of world building that can be accomplished over a 10 episode season that is impossible to do over that 2h movie slot.
Maybe this time they will cast someone as Harry who can act...
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
Ordinarily I am very suspicious of reboots and remakes - why not create something new? In this case though, its a good thing.
Two reasons - the franchise remains hugely popular. The films are quite old now, so relaunching it for a new generation has some merit.
More fundamentally, the films were stymied at the start by Chris fucking Columbus making some stupid decisions which hampered the rest of the films. Making Ron an idiot, making it all saccharine and small child friendly, hiding the darkness that clearly was hanging over everything.
A remake that has some umph from the start would be fun.
I'm generically in favour of reboots, remakes, and expansions. Many will be bad or unnecessary but some will be very good. Some will be so different they might as well be new.
Plus, that's how stand the test of time. Characters and stories told through generations. Who will remember Indiana Jones but film buffs if they never let anyone else play the role?
The TV show format suits something like Harry Potter as well because it's set in school years and some of the most loved bits of the books aren't necessarily the big action sequences producers try and fit into a 2h movie. There's a lot of world building that can be accomplished over a 10 episode season that is impossible to do over that 2h movie slot.
Maybe this time they will cast someone as Harry who can act...
The other thing that really surprises me is just how awful the government response has been to the relentless reports of raw sewage being poured into our rivers and seas. That may or may not have a Brexit element to it - I don't know - but it is allowing the narrative to build that it does. It's also incredibly damaging politically. Again down here in Sidders it is a massive topic of local conversation in the local paper and on message boards etc. It's also being highlighted in all the campaign leaflets we are getting. I can't help thinking it is an absolute gift for the LibDems, who won the by-election next door last year, of course. If I were Rishi I would add it to my pledges pronto and be seen to be doing something about it. It is a very Blue Wall issue.
I entirely agree with that. It’s about as basic as politics gets. Shit is pouring into our rivers and seas and people are - rightly - not happy
It is being blamed in part on Brexit, in part on immigration (with who knows how much justification) and very much on the government. It seems to sum up the sense of Britain getting poorer and shabbier. They should be acting fast. It does not feel like they are
Does anyone know why it has suddenly become a salient issue? It must've been going on for years. And will take decades to fix.
Gone fishing? Wild Isles? Feargal Sharkey?
It's a decreasing problem, in decade terms. Two reasons:
1. It actually increased in 2021 - weather related, apparently 2. The government has mandated sensors be put on all sewage outflows to detect how many hours they are in use. This allows unscrupulous or dim journalists to say the problem is getting worse because there is data now.
It's a really good issue for opposition parties: the public really do seem to believe we didn't used to have any sewage outflows...
It’s also an underinvestment problem. I remember much discussion about the problems of infrastructure, including a reliance on Victorian legacy systems, at the time of privatisation. Several decades of unduly light regulation have allowed the problem to persist and grow. If we’d started earlier, the extra annual burden wouldn’t have been that great, and we’d be in a far better position.
Yet another example of why you should plan long term for long term problems. Stuff that can’t be done in a couple if electoral cycles still needs doing.
Probably true for a lot of stuff in Britain. And the longer we postpone the reckoning, the worse it will be. Yes, it is going to cost an unpleasant amount- tough.
I am off to Ayr for the Scottish National meeting today , for the big race at 3:35 I am looking at Kitty's Light and Your own Story Good luck to anyone having a flutter
The TV show format suits something like Harry Potter as well because it's set in school years and some of the most loved bits of the books aren't necessarily the big action sequences producers try and fit into a 2h movie. There's a lot of world building that can be accomplished over a 10 episode season that is impossible to do over that 2h movie slot.
Maybe this time they will cast someone as Harry who can act...
Radcliffe was fun in Lost City. But they were kids, it's hard to find good child actors as they are so rare, and no way to know if they can learn later.
Because of a hash table collision in my brain, I now have a mental image of Jolyon, in black face and a kimono, chasing a fox through the jungle with a cricket bat.
I need compensation. Can anyone recommend a batshit crazy lawyer, who will take on any case, no matter how stupid?
Because of a hash table collision in my brain, I now have a mental image of Jolyon, in black face and a kimono, chasing a fox through the jungle with a cricket bat.
I need compensation. Can anyone recommend a batshit crazy lawyer, who will take on any case, no matter how stupid?
I happen to deal with the financial side of the sewerage issue a fair amount professionally these days. There is an awful lot of rubbish (or shit?) talked about it. If people want to fix it completely, it will take decades and bills may have to rise by 50-100% or more over that time people. This at a time when they are scheduled to go up anyway for a number of reasons (higher energy costs from Net Zero garbage, higher chemicals costs because of the war in Ukraine, higher labour costs because of the tight labour market, the diminishing scope for post-privatisation operating efficiency gains, etc. etc).
The water companies are not fantastically profitable - their regulated return will be 3.3% in real terms, and, while many of them manage to beat that in practice, the industry as a whole is not making excessive profits - the only reason it appears to be so is because it is a capital intensive industry at a mature stage in life cycle of its assets. Such industries invest a lot in building their networks, in anticipation of returns later on. When that investment tails off, it appears they are making huge profits, but this is only enabled by the initial commitment of cash in their early stages. If you then take the profits away, either you need to give the companies greater returns later, or you will not get any investment in the future.
We can have cleaner beaches, but only at the cost of much lower investment elsewhere, or much higher bills for future generations. The idea that there is some huge pot of cash to be raided without consequence is an economically illiterate fantasy. Which is, of course, why so many socialists, journalists and other idiots love it.
@andreajenkyns Sad to see @DominicRaab leave gov. PM should have backed him. I was Dom's PPS when he was Housing Minister & saw his commitment, grasp of the brief, was always curtious & honest. This has set a dangerous precident. I previously backed him for leader as he is a true Thacherite.
What did he achieve at housing ?
And is ‘curtious’ the opposite of courteous ?
We have had 15 Housing Ministers since 2010. The idea is that none of them are there long enough to achieve anything beyond the status quo.
That is indeed a lot of brief grasping.
Bit short on the commitment, though.
A small state government might ask why a minister for housing is needed at all.
Just as it might ask why we need the NHS with its mighty management structure and a Department of Health as well.
The other thing that really surprises me is just how awful the government response has been to the relentless reports of raw sewage being poured into our rivers and seas. That may or may not have a Brexit element to it - I don't know - but it is allowing the narrative to build that it does. It's also incredibly damaging politically. Again down here in Sidders it is a massive topic of local conversation in the local paper and on message boards etc. It's also being highlighted in all the campaign leaflets we are getting. I can't help thinking it is an absolute gift for the LibDems, who won the by-election next door last year, of course. If I were Rishi I would add it to my pledges pronto and be seen to be doing something about it. It is a very Blue Wall issue.
I entirely agree with that. It’s about as basic as politics gets. Shit is pouring into our rivers and seas and people are - rightly - not happy
It is being blamed in part on Brexit, in part on immigration (with who knows how much justification) and very much on the government. It seems to sum up the sense of Britain getting poorer and shabbier. They should be acting fast. It does not feel like they are
Does anyone know why it has suddenly become a salient issue? It must've been going on for years. And will take decades to fix.
Gone fishing? Wild Isles? Feargal Sharkey?
It's a decreasing problem, in decade terms. Two reasons:
1. It actually increased in 2021 - weather related, apparently 2. The government has mandated sensors be put on all sewage outflows to detect how many hours they are in use. This allows unscrupulous or dim journalists to say the problem is getting worse because there is data now.
It's a really good issue for opposition parties: the public really do seem to believe we didn't used to have any sewage outflows...
It’s also an underinvestment problem. I remember much discussion about the problems of infrastructure, including a reliance on Victorian legacy systems, at the time of privatisation. Several decades of unduly light regulation have allowed the problem to persist and grow. If we’d started earlier, the extra annual burden wouldn’t have been that great, and we’d be in a far better position.
Yet another example of why you should plan long term for long term problems. Stuff that can’t be done in a couple if electoral cycles still needs doing.
Probably true for a lot of stuff in Britain. And the longer we postpone the reckoning, the worse it will be. Yes, it is going to cost an unpleasant amount- tough.
Another more tractable, and shorter term example is EV charging infrastructure. Sometime in the next few years, EV prices and manufacturing capacity are going to hit a point where they will be everyone’s next car. It’s quite likely that charging infrastructure will lag that considerably, at the current rate of progress. That’s not a hard problem to solve, but much easier if we take it seriously now.
@andreajenkyns Sad to see @DominicRaab leave gov. PM should have backed him. I was Dom's PPS when he was Housing Minister & saw his commitment, grasp of the brief, was always curtious & honest. This has set a dangerous precident. I previously backed him for leader as he is a true Thacherite.
What did he achieve at housing ?
And is ‘curtious’ the opposite of courteous ?
We have had 15 Housing Ministers since 2010. The idea is that none of them are there long enough to achieve anything beyond the status quo.
That is indeed a lot of brief grasping.
Bit short on the commitment, though.
A small state government might ask why a minister for housing is needed at all.
Just as it might ask why we need the NHS with its mighty management structure and a Department of Health as well.
Anyone with a brain is perplexed as to why we need the DfE, which only makes things worse and creates a great deal of pointless work.
You don’t have to be a small state gammon to question the need for their existence. Merely have a working knowledge of education.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
@andreajenkyns Sad to see @DominicRaab leave gov. PM should have backed him. I was Dom's PPS when he was Housing Minister & saw his commitment, grasp of the brief, was always curtious & honest. This has set a dangerous precident. I previously backed him for leader as he is a true Thacherite.
What did he achieve at housing ?
And is ‘curtious’ the opposite of courteous ?
We have had 15 Housing Ministers since 2010. The idea is that none of them are there long enough to achieve anything beyond the status quo.
That is indeed a lot of brief grasping.
Bit short on the commitment, though.
A small state government might ask why a minister for housing is needed at all.
Just as it might ask why we need the NHS with its mighty management structure and a Department of Health as well.
Anyone with a brain is perplexed as to why we need the DfE, which only makes things worse and creates a great deal of pointless work.
You don’t have to be a small state gammon to question the need for their existence. Merely have a working knowledge of education.
They're working to boost the number of private tutors by driving out hardworking teachers.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
@andreajenkyns Sad to see @DominicRaab leave gov. PM should have backed him. I was Dom's PPS when he was Housing Minister & saw his commitment, grasp of the brief, was always curtious & honest. This has set a dangerous precident. I previously backed him for leader as he is a true Thacherite.
What did he achieve at housing ?
And is ‘curtious’ the opposite of courteous ?
We have had 15 Housing Ministers since 2010. The idea is that none of them are there long enough to achieve anything beyond the status quo.
That is indeed a lot of brief grasping.
Bit short on the commitment, though.
A small state government might ask why a minister for housing is needed at all.
Just as it might ask why we need the NHS with its mighty management structure and a Department of Health as well.
Oh there is so much I would like to see scrapped. With a Universal Income the DWP could just about be scrapped. DBIS could do with a hatchet job. Never thought about the NHS actually, but you are right it should be one or the other not both.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
They wont win a 5th election no chance. Too many people in the red wall hit by higher interest rates for a start.
@andreajenkyns Sad to see @DominicRaab leave gov. PM should have backed him. I was Dom's PPS when he was Housing Minister & saw his commitment, grasp of the brief, was always curtious & honest. This has set a dangerous precident. I previously backed him for leader as he is a true Thacherite.
What did he achieve at housing ?
And is ‘curtious’ the opposite of courteous ?
We have had 15 Housing Ministers since 2010. The idea is that none of them are there long enough to achieve anything beyond the status quo.
That is indeed a lot of brief grasping.
Bit short on the commitment, though.
A small state government might ask why a minister for housing is needed at all.
Just as it might ask why we need the NHS with its mighty management structure and a Department of Health as well.
Anyone with a brain is perplexed as to why we need the DfE, which only makes things worse and creates a great deal of pointless work.
You don’t have to be a small state gammon to question the need for their existence. Merely have a working knowledge of education.
I was fascinated, watching the head of admin for the new Free School where my daughter went. She’d turned not actually responding (while responding) to various people/groups trying to “manage” the school into an art.
I've also had a flyer from Alliance for Democracy and Freedom. Does anyone know anything about them? I note on their website one candidate says he attended a "grammer school".
Speaking of the bizarre double standards of expectation that have been at play throughout this unedifying case, it was Raab who – after he succeeded Davis at DExEU – announced in public: “We are, and I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this … but if you look at the UK and if you look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.” Imagine saying that out loud as a secretary of state, then beetling off to insult some underling for failing to pander to one of your Microsoft Word idiosyncrasies. Ditto Raab’s failure to read the 32-page Good Friday agreement. Raab eventually resigned as Brexit secretary because he couldn’t support a deal he himself had negotiated. But honestly, mate, tell me again how all you demand from people are the same high professional standards to which you hold yourself.
I have no idea what the actual percentage of trade via Dover is, but for example say it is 90%.
If someone had asked me I would probably have guessed 75%.
So I “haven’t appreciated to the full extent” how dependent we are on that route
Exactly, this whole episode is just misinformation designed to undermine politicians in public discourse.
It is actually seems like evidence that he read his briefing notes, etc....
There are statements that reveal outrageous ignorance on the part of politicians but this wasn't one of them.
Raab's defenders seem to have misunderstood what he said about Dover-Calais. Yes, it is evidence he read his notes but it is also evidence because he says so himself that he'd previously not realised how widgets cross the Channel. There is a path to defend Raab as being honest or self-deprecating. It is a bit like a new Northern Ireland Secretary not having realised loyalists and republicans voted for different parties.
@andreajenkyns Sad to see @DominicRaab leave gov. PM should have backed him. I was Dom's PPS when he was Housing Minister & saw his commitment, grasp of the brief, was always curtious & honest. This has set a dangerous precident. I previously backed him for leader as he is a true Thacherite.
What did he achieve at housing ?
And is ‘curtious’ the opposite of courteous ?
We have had 15 Housing Ministers since 2010. The idea is that none of them are there long enough to achieve anything beyond the status quo.
That is indeed a lot of brief grasping.
Bit short on the commitment, though.
A small state government might ask why a minister for housing is needed at all.
Just as it might ask why we need the NHS with its mighty management structure and a Department of Health as well.
Anyone with a brain is perplexed as to why we need the DfE, which only makes things worse and creates a great deal of pointless work.
You don’t have to be a small state gammon to question the need for their existence. Merely have a working knowledge of education.
We have the Department for Education because Jim Hacker went on a school visit and was given a stool made of stolen wood.
@andreajenkyns Sad to see @DominicRaab leave gov. PM should have backed him. I was Dom's PPS when he was Housing Minister & saw his commitment, grasp of the brief, was always curtious & honest. This has set a dangerous precident. I previously backed him for leader as he is a true Thacherite.
What did he achieve at housing ?
And is ‘curtious’ the opposite of courteous ?
We have had 15 Housing Ministers since 2010. The idea is that none of them are there long enough to achieve anything beyond the status quo.
That is indeed a lot of brief grasping.
Bit short on the commitment, though.
A small state government might ask why a minister for housing is needed at all.
Just as it might ask why we need the NHS with its mighty management structure and a Department of Health as well.
Anyone with a brain is perplexed as to why we need the DfE, which only makes things worse and creates a great deal of pointless work.
You don’t have to be a small state gammon to question the need for their existence. Merely have a working knowledge of education.
They're working to boost the number of private tutors by driving out hardworking teachers.
Indeed.
This must be discouraged so I can cut down on the competition.
I've also had a flyer from Alliance for Democracy and Freedom. Does anyone know anything about them? I note on their website one candidate says he attended a "grammer school".
I happen to deal with the financial side of the sewerage issue a fair amount professionally these days. There is an awful lot of rubbish (or shit?) talked about it. If people want to fix it completely, it will take decades and bills may have to rise by 50-100% or more over that time people. This at a time when they are scheduled to go up anyway for a number of reasons (higher energy costs from Net Zero garbage, higher chemicals costs because of the war in Ukraine, higher labour costs because of the tight labour market, the diminishing scope for post-privatisation operating efficiency gains, etc. etc).
The water companies are not fantastically profitable - their regulated return will be 3.3% in real terms, and, while many of them manage to beat that in practice, the industry as a whole is not making excessive profits - the only reason it appears to be so is because it is a capital intensive industry at a mature stage in life cycle of its assets. Such industries invest a lot in building their networks, in anticipation of returns later on. When that investment tails off, it appears they are making huge profits, but this is only enabled by the initial commitment of cash in their early stages. If you then take the profits away, either you need to give the companies greater returns later, or you will not get any investment in the future.
We can have cleaner beaches, but only at the cost of much lower investment elsewhere, or much higher bills for future generations. The idea that there is some huge pot of cash to be raided without consequence is an economically illiterate fantasy. Which is, of course, why so many socialists, journalists and other idiots love it.
Publicly-owned water companies made huge investments; mature utilities were privatised, and mostly sold to foreign owners who use them as cash cows, but now that investment is needed, well, that's down to the taxpayer and not the private companies. Is that the gist?
I've also had a flyer from Alliance for Democracy and Freedom. Does anyone know anything about them? I note on their website one candidate says he attended a "grammer school".
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
Ordinarily I am very suspicious of reboots and remakes - why not create something new? In this case though, its a good thing.
Two reasons - the franchise remains hugely popular. The films are quite old now, so relaunching it for a new generation has some merit.
More fundamentally, the films were stymied at the start by Chris fucking Columbus making some stupid decisions which hampered the rest of the films. Making Ron an idiot, making it all saccharine and small child friendly, hiding the darkness that clearly was hanging over everything.
A remake that has some umph from the start would be fun.
I wonder if Rowling realises quite how dystopian is the world that she created.
Soul-consumption by the dementors is a form of punishment that is much nastier than even the worst forms of execution. I think even Stalin's executioners might have baulked at it.
Being sent to Azkaban is among the worst forms of torture.
Even sympathetic wizards view non-wizards at best, with patronising contempt. Most of them view them as cattle. That's not just the view of the Death Eaters, it's almost universal. Even Hermione, who is often on the receiving end of some vicious prejudice, has partially internalised those values.
It was never made entirely clear what, exactly, Fenrir Greyback wanted to do to Hermione, but it was horribly suggestive.
Nor was it ever made entirely clear what the centaurs did to Dolores Umbridge, when they carried her off, but Rowling (and her alter ego, Hermione) are familiar with classical literature, and there is one thing that centaurs are very well known for, in classical literature.
So, yes, I'd like the TV series to ramp the horror.
I happen to deal with the financial side of the sewerage issue a fair amount professionally these days. There is an awful lot of rubbish (or shit?) talked about it. If people want to fix it completely, it will take decades and bills may have to rise by 50-100% or more over that time people. This at a time when they are scheduled to go up anyway for a number of reasons (higher energy costs from Net Zero garbage, higher chemicals costs because of the war in Ukraine, higher labour costs because of the tight labour market, the diminishing scope for post-privatisation operating efficiency gains, etc. etc).
The water companies are not fantastically profitable - their regulated return will be 3.3% in real terms, and, while many of them manage to beat that in practice, the industry as a whole is not making excessive profits - the only reason it appears to be so is because it is a capital intensive industry at a mature stage in life cycle of its assets. Such industries invest a lot in building their networks, in anticipation of returns later on. When that investment tails off, it appears they are making huge profits, but this is only enabled by the initial commitment of cash in their early stages. If you then take the profits away, either you need to give the companies greater returns later, or you will not get any investment in the future…
That’s not the argument. Utilities like water should never be making ‘huge profits’. The investment should be long term, from revenue, and ongoing. If the companies don’t like that, then tough.
My point was that tougher regulation starting four decades back might have enabled a large capital spend over time, with comparatively little pain. We should certainly be tougher now.
What is the capital cost anyway ? Did this report ever get published (the £600bn figure sounds complete nonsense to me) ?
Sources say the figure of £660bn appears nowhere in the report. The Angling Trust said the report cites a range of lower-cost options for progressively dealing with the worst and most damaging sewage discharges ranging from £3.9bn to £62.7bn, with an impact on average water bills of between £19 and £58 a year.
It is also understood to estimate that an overall plan to reduce spills from storm overflows to an average of 10 a year in sensitive areas would cost between £13.5bn and £21.7bn.
Christine Colvin, from the Rivers Trust, said the huge range in the government’s figures – between £150bn and £650bn – indicated a low level of confidence in them...
I happen to deal with the financial side of the sewerage issue a fair amount professionally these days. There is an awful lot of rubbish (or shit?) talked about it. If people want to fix it completely, it will take decades and bills may have to rise by 50-100% or more over that time people. This at a time when they are scheduled to go up anyway for a number of reasons (higher energy costs from Net Zero garbage, higher chemicals costs because of the war in Ukraine, higher labour costs because of the tight labour market, the diminishing scope for post-privatisation operating efficiency gains, etc. etc).
The water companies are not fantastically profitable - their regulated return will be 3.3% in real terms, and, while many of them manage to beat that in practice, the industry as a whole is not making excessive profits - the only reason it appears to be so is because it is a capital intensive industry at a mature stage in life cycle of its assets. Such industries invest a lot in building their networks, in anticipation of returns later on. When that investment tails off, it appears they are making huge profits, but this is only enabled by the initial commitment of cash in their early stages. If you then take the profits away, either you need to give the companies greater returns later, or you will not get any investment in the future.
We can have cleaner beaches, but only at the cost of much lower investment elsewhere, or much higher bills for future generations. The idea that there is some huge pot of cash to be raided without consequence is an economically illiterate fantasy. Which is, of course, why so many socialists, journalists and other idiots love it.
Publicly-owned water companies made huge investments; mature utilities were privatised, and mostly sold to foreign owners who use them as cash cows, but now that investment is needed, well, that's down to the taxpayer and not the private companies. Is that the gist?
Massive investments were made *after* privatisation.
Part of the reason for privatisation was that the needed investment was always blocked by the Treasury.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
Maugham is now being brutally mocked by J K Rowling. Enjoyable
Must be great to have earned so much money from writing, you can say whatever the fuck you want....
Well, that's right.
A lot of people have sympathy with her and would love to be able to say whatever they want too, but, they can't afford to gamble their whole careers on it.
I happen to deal with the financial side of the sewerage issue a fair amount professionally these days. There is an awful lot of rubbish (or shit?) talked about it. If people want to fix it completely, it will take decades and bills may have to rise by 50-100% or more over that time people. This at a time when they are scheduled to go up anyway for a number of reasons (higher energy costs from Net Zero garbage, higher chemicals costs because of the war in Ukraine, higher labour costs because of the tight labour market, the diminishing scope for post-privatisation operating efficiency gains, etc. etc).
The water companies are not fantastically profitable - their regulated return will be 3.3% in real terms, and, while many of them manage to beat that in practice, the industry as a whole is not making excessive profits - the only reason it appears to be so is because it is a capital intensive industry at a mature stage in life cycle of its assets. Such industries invest a lot in building their networks, in anticipation of returns later on. When that investment tails off, it appears they are making huge profits, but this is only enabled by the initial commitment of cash in their early stages. If you then take the profits away, either you need to give the companies greater returns later, or you will not get any investment in the future.
We can have cleaner beaches, but only at the cost of much lower investment elsewhere, or much higher bills for future generations. The idea that there is some huge pot of cash to be raided without consequence is an economically illiterate fantasy. Which is, of course, why so many socialists, journalists and other idiots love it.
Publicly-owned water companies made huge investments; mature utilities were privatised, and mostly sold to foreign owners who use them as cash cows, but now that investment is needed, well, that's down to the taxpayer and not the private companies. Is that the gist?
Massive investments were made *after* privatisation.
Part of the reason for privatisation was that the needed investment was always blocked by the Treasury.
That is partly true. Also true is that a tougher regulator would have maintained a significantly higher level of investment.
As much of the equity is now foreign owned, I don’t see the problem in starting now.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
Much higher proportion of what you call ‘nutters’.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
Nobody thought the Tories were going to win in 97. Nobody. They were doomed after Major's win in 92. Credit to Major for achieving that, but it doomed the Tories for the next election.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
Nobody thought the Tories were going to win in 97. Nobody. They were doomed after Major's win in 92.
John Major thought they could for a start. You are applying hindsight bias here.
I happen to deal with the financial side of the sewerage issue a fair amount professionally these days. There is an awful lot of rubbish (or shit?) talked about it. If people want to fix it completely, it will take decades and bills may have to rise by 50-100% or more over that time people. This at a time when they are scheduled to go up anyway for a number of reasons (higher energy costs from Net Zero garbage, higher chemicals costs because of the war in Ukraine, higher labour costs because of the tight labour market, the diminishing scope for post-privatisation operating efficiency gains, etc. etc).
The water companies are not fantastically profitable - their regulated return will be 3.3% in real terms, and, while many of them manage to beat that in practice, the industry as a whole is not making excessive profits - the only reason it appears to be so is because it is a capital intensive industry at a mature stage in life cycle of its assets. Such industries invest a lot in building their networks, in anticipation of returns later on. When that investment tails off, it appears they are making huge profits, but this is only enabled by the initial commitment of cash in their early stages. If you then take the profits away, either you need to give the companies greater returns later, or you will not get any investment in the future…
That’s not the argument. Utilities like water should never be making ‘huge profits’. The investment should be long term, from revenue, and ongoing. If the companies don’t like that, then tough.
My point was that tougher regulation starting four decades back might have enabled a large capital spend over time, with comparatively little pain. We should certainly be tougher now.
What is the capital cost anyway ? Did this report ever get published (the £600bn figure sounds complete nonsense to me) ?
Sources say the figure of £660bn appears nowhere in the report. The Angling Trust said the report cites a range of lower-cost options for progressively dealing with the worst and most damaging sewage discharges ranging from £3.9bn to £62.7bn, with an impact on average water bills of between £19 and £58 a year.
It is also understood to estimate that an overall plan to reduce spills from storm overflows to an average of 10 a year in sensitive areas would cost between £13.5bn and £21.7bn.
Christine Colvin, from the Rivers Trust, said the huge range in the government’s figures – between £150bn and £650bn – indicated a low level of confidence in them...
Or a high level of confidence that they would get ripped off...
I do not think Labour will win a majority. I am however relatively confident that Starmer will be PM.
I think if that happens, the Tories will be out for some time.
Tories have demographic against them. The boomers will be dying out soon so i can see the tories out of power for 20 years.
Oh dear…..”demographic inevitability” .
To take a recent example, …..over 10% of the Scottish electorate (largely no voting) have died since the independence referendum in 2014…..and the polls have shifted not a jot. Curiously enough, people’s views change over time.
There may be some evidence that this is happening less with current younger generations, but if the Tories are “out of power for 20 years” it will be because they’ve been squabbling among themselves, not because of demography….
I do not think Labour will win a majority. I am however relatively confident that Starmer will be PM.
I think if that happens, the Tories will be out for some time.
Tories have demographic against them. The boomers will be dying out soon so i can see the tories out of power for 20 years.
Oh dear…..”demographic inevitability” .
To take a recent example, …..over 10% of the Scottish electorate (largely no voting) have died since the independence referendum in 2014…..and the polls have shifted not a jot. Curiously enough, people’s views change over time.
There may be some evidence that this is happening less with current younger generations, but if the Tories are “out of power for 20 years” it will be because they’ve been squabbling among themselves, not because of demography….
Yes but a huge proportion of younger people wont own property. Also the tories may be outflanked on the right by a more rightwing antiimmigration party.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
Nobody thought the Tories were going to win in 97. Nobody. They were doomed after Major's win in 92.
John Major thought they could for a start. You are applying hindsight bias here.
Read Gyles Brandreth's diaries. He was MP for a marginal seat 1992-7.
Whatever people were saying with their performance faces on, Conservatives knew that they were facing defeat long before the election.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
Nobody thought the Tories were going to win in 97. Nobody. They were doomed after Major's win in 92. Credit to Major for achieving that, but it doomed the Tories for the next election.
The consensus was they were going to lose in ‘92 - the “hung parliament” exit poll was a surprise. I went to bed “Tories largest party short of a majority” and woke to a Tory majority. Nobody seriously believed they would win in ‘97 - the only question was how big Labour’s majority would be. Huge or enormous.
@andreajenkyns Sad to see @DominicRaab leave gov. PM should have backed him. I was Dom's PPS when he was Housing Minister & saw his commitment, grasp of the brief, was always curtious & honest. This has set a dangerous precident. I previously backed him for leader as he is a true Thacherite.
What did he achieve at housing ?
And is ‘curtious’ the opposite of courteous ?
We have had 15 Housing Ministers since 2010. The idea is that none of them are there long enough to achieve anything beyond the status quo.
That is indeed a lot of brief grasping.
Bit short on the commitment, though.
A small state government might ask why a minister for housing is needed at all.
Just as it might ask why we need the NHS with its mighty management structure and a Department of Health as well.
Anyone with a brain is perplexed as to why we need the DfE, which only makes things worse and creates a great deal of pointless work.
You don’t have to be a small state gammon to question the need for their existence. Merely have a working knowledge of education.
We have the Department for Education because Jim Hacker went on a school visit and was given a stool made of stolen wood.
Lots of stools in the DfE.
And at least one significant part of their bodies is made from solid wood.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
Nobody thought the Tories were going to win in 97. Nobody. They were doomed after Major's win in 92. Credit to Major for achieving that, but it doomed the Tories for the next election.
The consensus was they were going to lose in ‘92 - the “hung parliament” exit poll was a surprise. I went to bed “Tories largest party short of a majority” and woke to a Tory majority. Nobody seriously believed they would win in ‘97 - the only question was how big Labour’s majority would be. Huge or enormous.
Does anyone seriously think they will win in 2024.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
Nobody thought the Tories were going to win in 97. Nobody. They were doomed after Major's win in 92. Credit to Major for achieving that, but it doomed the Tories for the next election.
The consensus was they were going to lose in ‘92 - the “hung parliament” exit poll was a surprise. I went to bed “Tories largest party short of a majority” and woke to a Tory majority. Nobody seriously believed they would win in ‘97 - the only question was how big Labour’s majority would be. Huge or enormous.
Matt drew three cartoons on May 1st 1997. He said they covered all possible outcomes:
Tories lose Tories lose badly Disaster for Tories.
His closing remark was ‘the disaster version was used in all editions.’
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
Nobody thought the Tories were going to win in 97. Nobody. They were doomed after Major's win in 92. Credit to Major for achieving that, but it doomed the Tories for the next election.
The consensus was they were going to lose in ‘92 - the “hung parliament” exit poll was a surprise. I went to bed “Tories largest party short of a majority” and woke to a Tory majority. Nobody seriously believed they would win in ‘97 - the only question was how big Labour’s majority would be. Huge or enormous.
Does anyone seriously think they will win in 2024.
"Win" in the sense of form the next government? Most seats?
@andreajenkyns Sad to see @DominicRaab leave gov. PM should have backed him. I was Dom's PPS when he was Housing Minister & saw his commitment, grasp of the brief, was always curtious & honest. This has set a dangerous precident. I previously backed him for leader as he is a true Thacherite.
What did he achieve at housing ?
And is ‘curtious’ the opposite of courteous ?
We have had 15 Housing Ministers since 2010. The idea is that none of them are there long enough to achieve anything beyond the status quo.
That is indeed a lot of brief grasping.
Bit short on the commitment, though.
A small state government might ask why a minister for housing is needed at all.
Just as it might ask why we need the NHS with its mighty management structure and a Department of Health as well.
Oh there is so much I would like to see scrapped. With a Universal Income the DWP could just about be scrapped. DBIS could do with a hatchet job. Never thought about the NHS actually, but you are right it should be one or the other not both.
SFAICS the Dept of Health etc exists to protect the NHS from itself. So, this week a report says (no idea if true but I have doubts) that maternity care is essentially racist.
If this were true the NHS management and medics are in the same dock as the Met police. Outcry? "Racist midwives strike"? Nope.
What I recall about 1997 was the way Major hung on until the last minute, apparently hoping that ‘something would turn up’! And the Conservative candidate for Castle Point, regarded until then as ‘safe’ standing outside the polling station in a strong Conservative ward urging us, the voters, to vote for him. That, plus his eve of poll leaflet, persuaded me to switch my vote from LD to Labour.
Curious timeline: 2021: Johnson Carmichael include warnings in SNP financial review of "greatest potential for fraud" (previously never did) 2022: John Todd (husband to SNP minister) leaves auditor firm (had became partner in 2011) 2022: months later auditors drop SNP as clients….
Fast-forward: SNP 'golden circle' tell nobody for more than half a year that auditors had resigned. Even withhold this information from prospective leadership candidates.
I happen to deal with the financial side of the sewerage issue a fair amount professionally these days. There is an awful lot of rubbish (or shit?) talked about it. If people want to fix it completely, it will take decades and bills may have to rise by 50-100% or more over that time people. This at a time when they are scheduled to go up anyway for a number of reasons (higher energy costs from Net Zero garbage, higher chemicals costs because of the war in Ukraine, higher labour costs because of the tight labour market, the diminishing scope for post-privatisation operating efficiency gains, etc. etc).
The water companies are not fantastically profitable - their regulated return will be 3.3% in real terms, and, while many of them manage to beat that in practice, the industry as a whole is not making excessive profits - the only reason it appears to be so is because it is a capital intensive industry at a mature stage in life cycle of its assets. Such industries invest a lot in building their networks, in anticipation of returns later on. When that investment tails off, it appears they are making huge profits, but this is only enabled by the initial commitment of cash in their early stages. If you then take the profits away, either you need to give the companies greater returns later, or you will not get any investment in the future.
We can have cleaner beaches, but only at the cost of much lower investment elsewhere, or much higher bills for future generations. The idea that there is some huge pot of cash to be raided without consequence is an economically illiterate fantasy. Which is, of course, why so many socialists, journalists and other idiots love it.
Excellent post.
Real life is full of hard choices. Nice to see a post from someone who knows what they're talking about.
My ferry doesn't leave for eight hours, but I'm stopping for a few beers at a mate's place on the way down to Portsmouth and heading off in about half an hour
This is all my luggage for the next three weeks (weighs just over 8kg), and my walking hat. The beer is for scale, and has now been opened as my "one for the road"
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
But, that was then.
There's nothing written in the stars that 1997 will repeat itself.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
Nobody thought the Tories were going to win in 97. Nobody. They were doomed after Major's win in 92.
John Major thought they could for a start. You are applying hindsight bias here.
Read Gyles Brandreth's diaries. He was MP for a marginal seat 1992-7.
Whatever people were saying with their performance faces on, Conservatives knew that they were facing defeat long before the election.
Brandreth is quite blunt in his comments about people... especially John Curry.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
Nobody thought the Tories were going to win in 97. Nobody. They were doomed after Major's win in 92. Credit to Major for achieving that, but it doomed the Tories for the next election.
The consensus was they were going to lose in ‘92 - the “hung parliament” exit poll was a surprise. I went to bed “Tories largest party short of a majority” and woke to a Tory majority. Nobody seriously believed they would win in ‘97 - the only question was how big Labour’s majority would be. Huge or enormous.
Does anyone seriously think they will win in 2024.
"Win" in the sense of form the next government? Most seats?
Yes form a govt. Remember in a hung parliament i doubt the libdems will be amenable again.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
Nobody thought the Tories were going to win in 97. Nobody. They were doomed after Major's win in 92. Credit to Major for achieving that, but it doomed the Tories for the next election.
The consensus was they were going to lose in ‘92 - the “hung parliament” exit poll was a surprise. I went to bed “Tories largest party short of a majority” and woke to a Tory majority. Nobody seriously believed they would win in ‘97 - the only question was how big Labour’s majority would be. Huge or enormous.
Matt drew three cartoons on May 1st 1997. He said they covered all possible outcomes:
Tories lose Tories lose badly Disaster for Tories.
His closing remark was ‘the disaster version was used in all editions.’
I happen to deal with the financial side of the sewerage issue a fair amount professionally these days. There is an awful lot of rubbish (or shit?) talked about it. If people want to fix it completely, it will take decades and bills may have to rise by 50-100% or more over that time people. This at a time when they are scheduled to go up anyway for a number of reasons (higher energy costs from Net Zero garbage, higher chemicals costs because of the war in Ukraine, higher labour costs because of the tight labour market, the diminishing scope for post-privatisation operating efficiency gains, etc. etc).
The water companies are not fantastically profitable - their regulated return will be 3.3% in real terms, and, while many of them manage to beat that in practice, the industry as a whole is not making excessive profits - the only reason it appears to be so is because it is a capital intensive industry at a mature stage in life cycle of its assets. Such industries invest a lot in building their networks, in anticipation of returns later on. When that investment tails off, it appears they are making huge profits, but this is only enabled by the initial commitment of cash in their early stages. If you then take the profits away, either you need to give the companies greater returns later, or you will not get any investment in the future.
We can have cleaner beaches, but only at the cost of much lower investment elsewhere, or much higher bills for future generations. The idea that there is some huge pot of cash to be raided without consequence is an economically illiterate fantasy. Which is, of course, why so many socialists, journalists and other idiots love it.
Excellent post.
Real life is full of hard choices. Nice to see a post from someone who knows what they're talking about.
Indeed. Both politics and (much) journalism is about concealing the two hard facts; that to govern is to choose; and everything is much harder and more complicated than average voters realise.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
There are lots of differences between today and the mid 90s but one I'd pick out as influential electorally is the weariness of the electorate.
Back then a slogan like New Labour New Britain, teamed with Things Can Only Get Better pumping from speakers and a dynamic young Oppo leader, could engender a warm fuzzy cocktail of pleasant feelings; hope, positivity, expectation of change whilst leaving the exact nature and method of the change undefined.
It's not like that now. There's not much cash. Our problems are deep-seated and not amenable to eye-catching political solutions. If it's a solution it won't be popular with vested interests or floating voters and therefore won't happen; if it's popular with vested interests and floating voters it's not a solution and therefore won't help.
On top of this you have in recent memory the last time some British politicians came along and got all 'inspirational', ie made grandiose promises about transforming the country: Brexit. It turned out to be a crock of shit.
People have noticed, I think. They aren't quite so susceptible now. Like, I keep hearing about SKS being "no Tony Blair", and he isn't, but Tony Blair would be no Tony Blair in 2023. We've lost the appetite for all that. We're jaded.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
But, that was then.
There's nothing written in the stars that 1997 will repeat itself.
Only 6 months ago people were talking about a wipeout worse than 1997. Bottom line is tories have had a mild counter trend bounce and people are extrapolating it linearly into the future.
It's that pesky Brexit supporting Times! I wonder if he's forgotten The Times was pro-Remain, or just considers the Times' moderate pro-Remain views to be, essentially, pro-Brexit compared with his.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
It's the timidity that's the problem. The range and scale of the challenges we face is such that we need a bold, reforming government prepared to push through changes not all of which will be popular. Yet Labour has decided that the path to power lies behind the sofa.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
I know we're talking about local elections, but Witney is still a pretty safe Conservative seat at general elections. At the last election they got 55%, and in 1983 they got 55% (with very little in the way of boundary changes between those elections).
The main difference isn't a drop in Tory support in West Oxfordshire, it's that Tories don't put up posters. I wonder why they don't put up posters? Maybe because they fear being ridiculed or mocked by people with other political allegiances. What does that say about the change in British society over the last 20 or 30 years?
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
I happen to deal with the financial side of the sewerage issue a fair amount professionally these days. There is an awful lot of rubbish (or shit?) talked about it. If people want to fix it completely, it will take decades and bills may have to rise by 50-100% or more over that time people. This at a time when they are scheduled to go up anyway for a number of reasons (higher energy costs from Net Zero garbage, higher chemicals costs because of the war in Ukraine, higher labour costs because of the tight labour market, the diminishing scope for post-privatisation operating efficiency gains, etc. etc).
The water companies are not fantastically profitable - their regulated return will be 3.3% in real terms, and, while many of them manage to beat that in practice, the industry as a whole is not making excessive profits - the only reason it appears to be so is because it is a capital intensive industry at a mature stage in life cycle of its assets. Such industries invest a lot in building their networks, in anticipation of returns later on. When that investment tails off, it appears they are making huge profits, but this is only enabled by the initial commitment of cash in their early stages. If you then take the profits away, either you need to give the companies greater returns later, or you will not get any investment in the future.
We can have cleaner beaches, but only at the cost of much lower investment elsewhere, or much higher bills for future generations. The idea that there is some huge pot of cash to be raided without consequence is an economically illiterate fantasy. Which is, of course, why so many socialists, journalists and other idiots love it.
Excellent post.
Real life is full of hard choices. Nice to see a post from someone who knows what they're talking about.
It's a long post that doesn't say all that much. The combination of privatisation and foreign ownership means that horizons are way too short and extracting profit is the order of the day. Starting with the money is beginning at the wrong end.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
Perhaps they just can't conceive of going from an 80 seat majority to a loss.
My ferry doesn't leave for eight hours, but I'm stopping for a few beers at a mate's place on the way down to Portsmouth and heading off in about half an hour
This is all my luggage for the next three weeks (weighs just over 8kg), and my walking hat. The beer is for scale, and has now been opened as my "one for the road"
Cheers!
You must have a very big head. Or drink small beers. Have a great trip!
I am having a pizza lunch beside the river Brembo, where just downstream from the town a ginormous factory extracts water from the river and sells it all over the world. I even brought a few bottles from home in the car all the way back to their birthplace.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
There are lots of differences between today and the mid 90s but one I'd pick out as influential electorally is the weariness of the electorate.
Back then a slogan like New Labour New Britain, teamed with Things Can Only Get Better pumping from speakers and a dynamic young Oppo leader, could engender a warm fuzzy cocktail of pleasant feelings; hope, positivity, expectation of change whilst leaving the exact nature and method of the change undefined.
It's not like that now. There's not much cash. Our problems are deep-seated and not amenable to eye-catching political solutions. If it's a solution it won't be popular with vested interests or floating voters and therefore won't happen; if it's popular with vested interests and floating voters it's not a solution and therefore won't help.
On top of this you have in recent memory the last time some British politicians came along and got all 'inspirational', ie made grandiose promises about transforming the country: Brexit. It turned out to be a crock of shit.
People have noticed, I think. They aren't quite so susceptible now. Like, I keep hearing about SKS being "no Tony Blair", and he isn't, but Tony Blair would be no Tony Blair in 2023. We've lost the appetite for all that. We're jaded.
Great post. Lets say a govt pledged to reduce house prices. Beneficial yes but you would immediately lose the votes of retired and middle aged people who own outright plus younger people with mortgages. So wont happen.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
Perhaps they just can't conceive of going from an 80 seat majority to a loss.
I never understand this. Each result is independent of the last. The only reason i can see some truth to this is people become attached to their local mp.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
No thats not true. Plenty thought the tories could pull it out of the bag in 97 remember the economy was strong then. If the tories were facing a blair type figure they woulf be polling 20% now.
Nobody thought the Tories were going to win in 97. Nobody. They were doomed after Major's win in 92.
John Major thought they could for a start. You are applying hindsight bias here.
Read Gyles Brandreth's diaries. He was MP for a marginal seat 1992-7.
Whatever people were saying with their performance faces on, Conservatives knew that they were facing defeat long before the election.
Brandreth is quite blunt in his comments about people... especially John Curry.
I presume you are referring to"Beaking The Code". I've just looked John Curry up in the index and found no references. Do you mean David Curry or Edwina Currie?
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
Perhaps they just can't conceive of going from an 80 seat majority to a loss.
Well, it hasn’t happened for over 50 years.
Personally, the polls are behaving much as I expected them to. And I would expect them to narrow further, but for the Tories still to come second.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
There are lots of differences between today and the mid 90s but one I'd pick out as influential electorally is the weariness of the electorate.
Back then a slogan like New Labour New Britain, teamed with Things Can Only Get Better pumping from speakers and a dynamic young Oppo leader, could engender a warm fuzzy cocktail of pleasant feelings; hope, positivity, expectation of change whilst leaving the exact nature and method of the change undefined.
It's not like that now. There's not much cash. Our problems are deep-seated and not amenable to eye-catching political solutions. If it's a solution it won't be popular with vested interests or floating voters and therefore won't happen; if it's popular with vested interests and floating voters it's not a solution and therefore won't help.
On top of this you have in recent memory the last time some British politicians came along and got all 'inspirational', ie made grandiose promises about transforming the country: Brexit. It turned out to be a crock of shit.
People have noticed, I think. They aren't quite so susceptible now. Like, I keep hearing about SKS being "no Tony Blair", and he isn't, but Tony Blair would be no Tony Blair in 2023. We've lost the appetite for all that. We're jaded.
Also Starmer is about 20 years older than Blair was in the mid-90s. Maybe Labour should have chosen a younger leader like Rachel Reeves or Bridget Phillipson.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
one can but hope. There would be no justice in the world if the tories survive the most recent 4 years of disdain, arrogance and fraud inflicted on the country.
This is my view too and I'm not being partisan. Given the shambles of the last few years, with a moderate, competent-looking alternative now available, if the Conservatives were to win a 5th election in a row because 'floating voters' still prefer them it would raise some troubling questions for/about the other parties, the electorate and our democracy.
Curious difference between now and the mid 90's.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
There are lots of differences between today and the mid 90s but one I'd pick out as influential electorally is the weariness of the electorate.
Back then a slogan like New Labour New Britain, teamed with Things Can Only Get Better pumping from speakers and a dynamic young Oppo leader, could engender a warm fuzzy cocktail of pleasant feelings; hope, positivity, expectation of change whilst leaving the exact nature and method of the change undefined.
It's not like that now. There's not much cash. Our problems are deep-seated and not amenable to eye-catching political solutions. If it's a solution it won't be popular with vested interests or floating voters and therefore won't happen; if it's popular with vested interests and floating voters it's not a solution and therefore won't help.
On top of this you have in recent memory the last time some British politicians came along and got all 'inspirational', ie made grandiose promises about transforming the country: Brexit. It turned out to be a crock of shit.
People have noticed, I think. They aren't quite so susceptible now. Like, I keep hearing about SKS being "no Tony Blair", and he isn't, but Tony Blair would be no Tony Blair in 2023. We've lost the appetite for all that. We're jaded.
Great post. Lets say a govt pledged to reduce house prices. Beneficial yes but you would immediately lose the votes of retired and middle aged people who own outright plus younger people with mortgages. So wont happen.
There's a good chance they will reduce by 10% or more this year, in real terms.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think its because of the pernicious influence of social media: people cave in to whoever is the best organised or has the loudest gob to kick up a media storm. And the radical Left have an advantage there.
Im reading a great book at the moment called sedated by james davies. Saying how the neo liberal capitalism of the us and uk is leading to a massive mental health crisis. Look at prescriptions for antidepressants trebling i think in last 20 years.
Here in West Oxfordshire - only a decade ago, rock-solid safe Tory heartland - there simply isn't a Tory poster to be seen. Where ten years ago, vast landowners told their tenant farmers to put up Tory posters, today's farmers ignore them, or display their own support for the LibDems or Greens. In more built-up parts of the district, the odd fluttering Labour poster amid a modest background of LibDemmery.
In the middle of the season for villages' Annual General Parish Meetings, not a sign of the poor old Tories lumbered with standing for the now Lib/Lab-run Council in May. And no-one's even surprised any more the Tories are too frit - or lazy - to reveal themselves. Even the local universities' Tory clubs don't seem to have the spare members to canvass the hinterland.
Does this mean the Tories are about to be wiped out? Or that elderly Tories - with their postal votes and bus passes the new vote-supressing laws still accept s voter ID - will turn out and vote however little activist support has survived the catastrophe Johnson, Truss and Raab have inflicted on the area?
I know we're talking about local elections, but Witney is still a pretty safe Conservative seat at general elections. At the last election they got 55%, and in 1983 they got 55% (with very little in the way of boundary changes between those elections).
The main difference isn't a drop in Tory support in West Oxfordshire, it's that Tories don't put up posters. I wonder why they don't put up posters? Maybe because they fear being ridiculed or mocked by people with other political allegiances. What does that say about the change in British society over the last 20 or 30 years?
Tories didn't put up posters during the Thatcher era either. Except in farmers' fields
Comments
Bit short on the commitment, though.
Her screed was several pages and definitely needed editing.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
1.15 Ayr - Elixir De Nut
1.50 Ayr - Temptationinmilan
2.25 Ayr - Highway One O Two
3.35 Ayr - Magna Sam
Have a good day Malc 🙋♀️
1. Water companies are extraordinarily profitable. An ocean of money they can invest to clear 30 years of infrastructure investment backlog.
2. It is a regulated sector. So simply direct the water companies to do the work. Some of the companies will not want to, and other companies will spring up, happy to drink from the guaranteed flow of money dripping out of the shiny new pipes they lay.
Nooooo!
Nonetheless, her cancellation was an outrage
Two reasons - the franchise remains hugely popular. The films are quite old now, so relaunching it for a new generation has some merit.
More fundamentally, the films were stymied at the start by Chris fucking Columbus making some stupid decisions which hampered the rest of the films. Making Ron an idiot, making it all saccharine and small child friendly, hiding the darkness that clearly was hanging over everything.
A remake that has some umph from the start would be fun.
I remember much discussion about the problems of infrastructure, including a reliance on Victorian legacy systems, at the time of privatisation. Several decades of unduly light regulation have allowed the problem to persist and grow.
If we’d started earlier, the extra annual burden wouldn’t have been that great, and we’d be in a far better position.
Yet another example of why you should plan long term for long term problems. Stuff that can’t be done in a couple if electoral cycles still needs doing.
Her reputation took a permanent knock, in the industry
Dig deep mugs.
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1649516433993265153?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
Plus, that's how stand the test of time. Characters and stories told through generations. Who will remember Indiana Jones but film buffs if they never let anyone else play the role?
https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1649652416202063875
“Never go full Jolyon” - JK Rowling
Because of a hash table collision in my brain, I now have a mental image of Jolyon, in black face and a kimono, chasing a fox through the jungle with a cricket bat.
I need compensation. Can anyone recommend a batshit crazy lawyer, who will take on any case, no matter how stupid?
That's foxed me.
The water companies are not fantastically profitable - their regulated return will be 3.3% in real terms, and, while many of them manage to beat that in practice, the industry as a whole is not making excessive profits - the only reason it appears to be so is because it is a capital intensive industry at a mature stage in life cycle of its assets. Such industries invest a lot in building their networks, in anticipation of returns later on. When that investment tails off, it appears they are making huge profits, but this is only enabled by the initial commitment of cash in their early stages. If you then take the profits away, either you need to give the companies greater returns later, or you will not get any investment in the future.
We can have cleaner beaches, but only at the cost of much lower investment elsewhere, or much higher bills for future generations. The idea that there is some huge pot of cash to be raided without consequence is an economically illiterate fantasy. Which is, of course, why so many socialists, journalists and other idiots love it.
Just as it might ask why we need the NHS with its mighty management structure and a Department of Health as well.
Sometime in the next few years, EV prices and manufacturing capacity are going to hit a point where they will be everyone’s next car.
It’s quite likely that charging infrastructure will lag that considerably, at the current rate of progress. That’s not a hard problem to solve, but much easier if we take it seriously now.
You don’t have to be a small state gammon to question the need for their existence. Merely have a working knowledge of education.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think if that happens, the Tories will be out for some time.
As a result the school was a massive success.
This must be discouraged so I can cut down on the competition.
Soul-consumption by the dementors is a form of punishment that is much nastier than even the worst forms of execution. I think even Stalin's executioners might have baulked at it.
Being sent to Azkaban is among the worst forms of torture.
Even sympathetic wizards view non-wizards at best, with patronising contempt. Most of them view them as cattle. That's not just the view of the Death Eaters, it's almost universal. Even Hermione, who is often on the receiving end of some vicious prejudice, has partially internalised those values.
It was never made entirely clear what, exactly, Fenrir Greyback wanted to do to Hermione, but it was horribly suggestive.
Nor was it ever made entirely clear what the centaurs did to Dolores Umbridge, when they carried her off, but Rowling (and her alter ego, Hermione) are familiar with classical literature, and there is one thing that centaurs are very well known for, in classical literature.
So, yes, I'd like the TV series to ramp the horror.
Utilities like water should never be making ‘huge profits’. The investment should be long term, from revenue, and ongoing. If the companies don’t like that, then tough.
My point was that tougher regulation starting four decades back might have enabled a large capital spend over time, with comparatively little pain. We should certainly be tougher now.
What is the capital cost anyway ?
Did this report ever get published (the £600bn figure sounds complete nonsense to me) ?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/27/cutting-sewage-spills-may-be-far-cheaper-than-uk-ministers-predict-say-experts
… But it is understood that in an analysis by the storm overflows taskforce, made up of the Environment Agency, the water industry and Ofwat, which is yet to be published, much more modest costings have been estimated for tackling the scourge of raw sewage discharges.
Sources say the figure of £660bn appears nowhere in the report. The Angling Trust said the report cites a range of lower-cost options for progressively dealing with the worst and most damaging sewage discharges ranging from £3.9bn to £62.7bn, with an impact on average water bills of between £19 and £58 a year.
It is also understood to estimate that an overall plan to reduce spills from storm overflows to an average of 10 a year in sensitive areas would cost between £13.5bn and £21.7bn.
Christine Colvin, from the Rivers Trust, said the huge range in the government’s figures – between £150bn and £650bn – indicated a low level of confidence in them...
Part of the reason for privatisation was that the needed investment was always blocked by the Treasury.
At some point in the runup to 1997, the collective unconcious of the Conervative Party concluded that the game was up. Some of that was driven by those who never really wanted Major, still hankering after Maggie. Some of it was driven by the sense that a Blair victory was almost as good as a Conservative win. Possibly the key point was the 1995 leadership election, when it was only really the nutters who put their head above the parapet to oppose Major.
There was lots of noise, and "the don't knows will return on the day", but also a sense that the real action would restart after the inevitable defeat. (As it turned out, a long time after the 1997 defeat, but that's another story.)
That doesn't seem to be happening this time- not yet anyway. And yet, objectively, the Conservatives are in a bad place. What's going on?
A lot of people have sympathy with her and would love to be able to say whatever they want too, but, they can't afford to gamble their whole careers on it.
Also true is that a tougher regulator would have maintained a significantly higher level of investment.
As much of the equity is now foreign owned, I don’t see the problem in starting now.
To take a recent example, …..over 10% of the Scottish electorate (largely no voting) have died since the independence referendum in 2014…..and the polls have shifted not a jot. Curiously enough, people’s views change over time.
There may be some evidence that this is happening less with current younger generations, but if the Tories are “out of power for 20 years” it will be because they’ve been squabbling among themselves, not because of demography….
Whatever people were saying with their performance faces on, Conservatives knew that they were facing defeat long before the election.
And at least one significant part of their bodies is made from solid wood.
Tories lose
Tories lose badly
Disaster for Tories.
His closing remark was ‘the disaster version was used in all editions.’
If this were true the NHS management and medics are in the same dock as the Met police. Outcry? "Racist midwives strike"? Nope.
And the Conservative candidate for Castle Point, regarded until then as ‘safe’ standing outside the polling station in a strong Conservative ward urging us, the voters, to vote for him. That, plus his eve of poll leaflet, persuaded me to switch my vote from LD to Labour.
2021: Johnson Carmichael include warnings in SNP financial review of "greatest potential for fraud" (previously never did)
2022: John Todd (husband to SNP minister) leaves auditor firm (had became partner in 2011)
2022: months later auditors drop SNP as clients….
Fast-forward: SNP 'golden circle' tell nobody for more than half a year that auditors had resigned. Even withhold this information from prospective leadership candidates.
https://twitter.com/DeanMThomson/status/1649704952204230656?s=20
Real life is full of hard choices. Nice to see a post from someone who knows what they're talking about.
My ferry doesn't leave for eight hours, but I'm stopping for a few beers at a mate's place on the way down to Portsmouth and heading off in about half an hour
This is all my luggage for the next three weeks (weighs just over 8kg), and my walking hat. The beer is for scale, and has now been opened as my "one for the road"
Cheers!
There's nothing written in the stars that 1997 will repeat itself.
@JolyonMaugham
Quite the review from The (Brexit supporting, pro Climate Change, racist, transphobic, anti-abortion, supine to power) Times."
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1649676837235171328
https://www.original-political-cartoon.com/media/filer_public_thumbnails/filer_public/95/87/95878d19-98c3-4b7d-bf77-0a2a71d50857/artist_30-3105-600.jpg__600x400_q85.jpg
Back then a slogan like New Labour New Britain, teamed with Things Can Only Get Better pumping from speakers and a dynamic young Oppo leader, could engender a warm fuzzy cocktail of pleasant feelings; hope, positivity, expectation of change whilst leaving the exact nature and method of the change undefined.
It's not like that now. There's not much cash. Our problems are deep-seated and not amenable to eye-catching political solutions. If it's a solution it won't be popular with vested interests or floating voters and therefore won't happen; if it's popular with vested interests and floating voters it's not a solution and therefore won't help.
On top of this you have in recent memory the last time some British politicians came along and got all 'inspirational', ie made grandiose promises about transforming the country: Brexit. It turned out to be a crock of shit.
People have noticed, I think. They aren't quite so susceptible now. Like, I keep hearing about SKS being "no Tony Blair", and he isn't, but Tony Blair would be no Tony Blair in 2023. We've lost the appetite for all that. We're jaded.
The main difference isn't a drop in Tory support in West Oxfordshire, it's that Tories don't put up posters. I wonder why they don't put up posters? Maybe because they fear being ridiculed or mocked by people with other political allegiances. What does that say about the change in British society over the last 20 or 30 years?
I am having a pizza lunch beside the river Brembo, where just downstream from the town a ginormous factory extracts water from the river and sells it all over the world. I even brought a few bottles from home in the car all the way back to their birthplace.
Personally, the polls are behaving much as I expected them to. And I would expect them to narrow further, but for the Tories still to come second.
In previous times, they'd simply be ignored.