But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.
They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.
I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).
It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.
Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.
I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.
Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)
My car works the same as your, Phil, and I hate it (the cut-out system, not the car...it's fine otherwise.)
It saves bugger all fuel and it can be dangerous. Since the engine is quiet normally you don't always know when it has switched itself off, nor can you tell the difference between deliberate cut-out and a genuine stall. Panic can result.
Who ever dreamed up such a dumb idea?
The fuel savings from it are significant depending on how the vehicle is used. Up to 10% in heavy traffic. It's woke nonsense to disable it.
Most of my driving is out of town these days, DA, so there's little stopping except at temporary traffic lights, which I normally ignore anyway.
The debate about stop-start systems is instructive. My 2009 i30 airport car has no automation beyond the choke. You want to stop/start you switch it off. So it means sitting at traffic lights with the engine pointlessly running.
Happily there are only a couple of sets of lights between me and the airport so it isn't an issue. But for those of you who drive these dino cars why on earth would you not welcome the S/S system doing its thing?
Less fuel burnt. Less crap pumped into the atmosphere. What is there to dislike?
Progress - some people don't like it.
Such folk are disproportionately represented on PB.
I imagine them driving their manual cars around towns at 37mph (so their car doesn't blow up), fiddling with their chokes when nobodies looking, before stopping off at the bank with their passbooks to deposit a £5.01 donation in cash to the Stop Ulez In Rural Bedfordshire Now pressure group.
First they came for the incandescent light bulbs and, I did not speak out.
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.
They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.
I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).
It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.
Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.
I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.
Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)
I think the problem is that my car:
1 - Is a semi-automatic (VAG DSG) gearbox 2 - Has auto-coasting on lifting the accelerator
So technically it is in neutral with the clutch up even though it is still moving, which you wouldn't normally be doing with manual gears.
I prefer to have the auto-coasting than the auto-cutout , so I have to disable the latter. I suspect it is a bug that VAG don't know how to fix, because the auto-cutout is EU mandated.
1. DSG is fully automatic, not semi-automatic. 2. Adaptive cruise control (if you have it) is your friend here. When in heavy traffic it will follow the car in front, slow when it does, speed up when it moves away, stop if the car in front stop, and stop the engine, then re-start the engine when the car in front begins to move again. I wish I'd had ACC when I was commuting along the M62 every day - I could have got an extra 30 mins of sleep every morning on that commute.
It can be selected as semi-automatic if you want to play with the gears, although the clutch(es) are fully automatic.
I have no problem with the concept of S/S if the starter/battery are up to it. I'd definitely keep it enabled in a manual car and do re-enable it sometimes in urban traffic although not if there are many roundabouts.
I'm not sure I'd like ACC though - you need at least something to keep you awake. Besides, it is only as efficient as the car in front, which often isn't very. You still get auto-braking in most cars now (although it is very last minute and you'd probably still hit things).
Technically DSG is manual, not automatic. Dual clutches instead of a torque converter or band drive means it is designed like a manual box, albeit one where the computer operates the clutches.
Its pedantry, I know. Its like when I see my Tesla described as an "automatic". It isn't.
Off topic: One more potential disaster for you to worry about: "A significant increase in Asian hornet sightings in the United Kingdom is raising alarm because of concerns that the hornets could ravage local bee populations.
🔵TAMWORTH: there are rumours Chris Pincher will resign as an MP in the next day or so and not go through with the likely humiliation of the Commons voting to suspend him, and then a recall petition. That would enable by-elections in both Mid-Beds & Tamworth on 12 October."
Could that allow Labour and LDs to divide and rule? Tamworth was Labour until 2010.
Tamworth not an easy Labour gain, as with a lot of the Midlands has swung much more Blue since it's days as Staffordshire SE, where Labour gained on an unnecessarily massive swing in 1996. That is now the swing needed.
Local election results (complicated by the Lichfield portion of the seat last voting in 2021), suggest it sits around midway between Selby and Uxbridge in difficulty. Which suggests, at the moment, a Labour win, but close.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
If the choice is rubbish, surely the answer isn't to have no choice, it's to somehow improve the choice.
The debate about stop-start systems is instructive. My 2009 i30 airport car has no automation beyond the choke. You want to stop/start you switch it off. So it means sitting at traffic lights with the engine pointlessly running.
Happily there are only a couple of sets of lights between me and the airport so it isn't an issue. But for those of you who drive these dino cars why on earth would you not welcome the S/S system doing its thing?
Less fuel burnt. Less crap pumped into the atmosphere. What is there to dislike?
Progress - some people don't like it.
Such folk are disproportionately represented on PB.
I imagine them driving their manual cars around towns at 37mph (so their car doesn't blow up), fiddling with their chokes when nobodies looking, before stopping off at the bank with their passbooks to deposit a £5.01 donation in cash to the Stop Ulez In Rural Bedfordshire Now pressure group.
First they came for the incandescent light bulbs and, I did not speak out.
My excuse is I had been on a drinking session so was well lit.
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.
Polluting the streets as you do, very nice of you
The stop/start damage is a thing. There is also a spike in pollution when you start an ICE. Catalytic converters take time to warm up etc.
This is nicely solved by electric delivery vehicles which don’t mind such usages patterns.
I assume Hermes Evri* are the greenest delivery company as they appear not to stop, but just lob the parcel through the vehicle window in the vague direction of your (if they're having a good day) house as they go past?
*replace with most hated courier as appropriate, if anyone hates one more than Evri
Funnily enough our Hermes/Evri delivery service is superb but that is 100% down to the great bloke that covers our area - he's brilliant. Unfortunately, whenever he goes on holiday we get the service Evri-one else does and it's utter chaos.
He now warns us when he's going on holiday and Mrs. P. takes a 'holiday' from eBay.
Save your household some money, by making up extra holidays that your Evri bloke has told you about….
Current car* is the first we've had with stop-start, electric hand brake, auto-hold, auto full beam etc. I love all of it. I never saw the point of electric hand brakes before having one, but it's really weird driving one with a manual hand brake now.
*previous was a 2015 C-Max, so not ancient - was three years old when we got it - but must have been bottom of range as it missed all the toys (Ford are quite tight with toys on base models, I think)
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.
They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.
I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).
It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.
Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.
I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.
Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)
My car works the same as your, Phil, and I hate it (the cut-out system, not the car...it's fine otherwise.)
It saves bugger all fuel and it can be dangerous. Since the engine is quiet normally you don't always know when it has switched itself off, nor can you tell the difference between deliberate cut-out and a genuine stall. Panic can result.
Who ever dreamed up such a dumb idea?
The fuel savings from it are significant depending on how the vehicle is used. Up to 10% in heavy traffic. It's woke nonsense to disable it.
Most of my driving is out of town these days, DA, so there's little stopping except at temporary traffic lights, which I normally ignore anyway.
Current car* is the first we've had with stop-start, electric hand brake, auto-hold, auto full beam etc. I love all of it. I never saw the point of electric hand brakes before having one, but it's really weird driving one with a manual hand brake now.
*previous was a 2015 C-Max, so not ancient - was three years old when we got it - but must have been bottom of range as it missed all the toys (Ford are quite tight with toys on base models, I think)
Except the parallel parking assist, which can’t cope with situations where any moderately competent driver could park the car.
It's coming up to the one year anniversary, later this month, of the last time Labour *didn't* have a double-digit lead in any UK/GB opinion poll.
That in itself is a strong indicator of what is likely to happen, David. I always think that a small steady lead is much more convincing than a sporadic one with high peaks. Actually Labours lead is large and long-lived. I just can't see people changing their mind in droves nearer the day.
Sorry, but I think the Tories are cuffed this time.
I saw your post about the odds. You and I know we won't often find much value in a 1/2 to shot, but I'm a bit more bullish than Mike on this one. I know he's a Pro and we both respect his opinion, but the latest fiasco has persuaded me that a Starmer Majority Government must be all of a 75% probability.
So I'm nibbling at the current odds, and hoping that I can soon start betting on some seat numbers.
Yes that is the road to riches here. You need to bet on a *big* Labour majority before it becomes the consensus. So those markets on seats can't come soon enough. If by the time they appear the election is just around the corner and every man and his dog is expecting a landslide that's no good to me at all.
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.
They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.
I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).
It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.
Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.
I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.
Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)
I think the problem is that my car:
1 - Is a semi-automatic (VAG DSG) gearbox 2 - Has auto-coasting on lifting the accelerator
So technically it is in neutral with the clutch up even though it is still moving, which you wouldn't normally be doing with manual gears.
I prefer to have the auto-coasting than the auto-cutout , so I have to disable the latter. I suspect it is a bug that VAG don't know how to fix, because the auto-cutout is EU mandated.
1. DSG is fully automatic, not semi-automatic. 2. Adaptive cruise control (if you have it) is your friend here. When in heavy traffic it will follow the car in front, slow when it does, speed up when it moves away, stop if the car in front stop, and stop the engine, then re-start the engine when the car in front begins to move again. I wish I'd had ACC when I was commuting along the M62 every day - I could have got an extra 30 mins of sleep every morning on that commute.
It can be selected as semi-automatic if you want to play with the gears, although the clutch(es) are fully automatic.
I have no problem with the concept of S/S if the starter/battery are up to it. I'd definitely keep it enabled in a manual car and do re-enable it sometimes in urban traffic although not if there are many roundabouts.
I'm not sure I'd like ACC though - you need at least something to keep you awake. Besides, it is only as efficient as the car in front, which often isn't very. You still get auto-braking in most cars now (although it is very last minute and you'd probably still hit things).
Vanilla just ate my long reply to this, but the gist of it is that the human thinks the car’s not going to react, before the car does react if left alone, and that’s what causes the problems with these systems. Not to mention that the human is on the line for any actual accidents.
As usual for the past few decades, the new Merc S-Class leads the way with the self-driving tech. If you want to know what your average car will be like in a decade’s time, test an S-Class today.
I feel like with this latest crisis the government has crossed the Rubicon into the kind of territory where there is no way back. I wouldn't bet against a Labour majority.
I'm not paying much attention from Ireland. Is this the concrete issue? Is it really that bad?
I would have thought that the Truss Event would have crossed a cornucopia of rubicons. If the Rubicon is not already well in the rear-view mirror there must be something that is holding voters back from wanting to drive the stake into the heart of this government. I'd suggest that's they aren't convinced that Starmer knows his garlic from his onions...
🔵TAMWORTH: there are rumours Chris Pincher will resign as an MP in the next day or so and not go through with the likely humiliation of the Commons voting to suspend him, and then a recall petition. That would enable by-elections in both Mid-Beds & Tamworth on 12 October."
Crick also notes the interesting situation over the potential Tory candidate.
Tamworth Tories have already selected Eddie Hughes as their General Election candidate. But his current job is a problem in terms of fighting the by-election... he's MP for Walsall North.
Crick has speculated he may stand down as an MP in Walsall to fight Tamworth. I find that hard to imagine. From his point of view it's quite likely he'd lose. But the party too would hate it as it's yet another tough by-election in Walsall in addition.
The second option would be for someone else to stand but Hughes remains selected as candidate for the General Election. That, too, is pretty absurd - the Tories would be putting someone up to say "I'd like to keep the seat warm for Eddie for a few months".
I suspect Hughes will be prevailed upon to resign as prospective candidate, but it may explain the delay when it would've been obvious for Pincher to apply promptly for the Chiltern Hundreds.
If you want to be positive on the Conservatives, it's not unreasonable to assume that they get two-thirds of both the DK/WV and the Reform vote. In that case, they're getting about 70% of their previous vote out. Add a bit for new voters and switchers to Con (yes they do exist), and that works out at about 32-33%.
Which - especially if there's some anti-Conservative tactical voting - is probably not quite enough to prevent a Labour majority.
I have a gut feeling - nothing more - that whereas we've historically (since 92) assumed a 'shy Tory' vote hidden in the DK/WV, there'll be a 'shy anti-Tory' vote this time - the disaffection among Tory voters has got so far down into the core that there are solid Tory voters who can't even quite admit to themselves that they will be changing this time.
Quite possibly.
My Conservative vote in '97 was the electoral equivalent of a pity snog; both John Major and the candidate in Cambridge were obviously doomed, but decent enough to not deserve the Full Reluctant Conscript treatment.
I don't feel that this time, and I'm not sensing it either.
Speaking of Truss, I knew there was something a bit odd about one of the new MAFSUK brides, and now I've realised that one of them reminds me of Truss. I can't unsee it.
🔵TAMWORTH: there are rumours Chris Pincher will resign as an MP in the next day or so and not go through with the likely humiliation of the Commons voting to suspend him, and then a recall petition. That would enable by-elections in both Mid-Beds & Tamworth on 12 October."
Crick also notes the interesting situation over the potential Tory candidate.
Tamworth Tories have already selected Eddie Hughes as their General Election candidate. But his current job is a problem in terms of fighting the by-election... he's MP for Walsall North.
Crick has speculated he may stand down as an MP in Walsall to fight Tamworth. I find that hard to imagine. From his point of view it's quite likely he'd lose. But the party too would hate it as it's yet another tough by-election in Walsall in addition.
The second option would be for someone else to stand but Hughes remains selected as candidate for the General Election. That, too, is pretty absurd - the Tories would be putting someone up to say "I'd like to keep the seat warm for Eddie for a few months".
I suspect Hughes will be prevailed upon to resign as prospective candidate, but it may explain the delay when it would've been obvious for Pincher to apply promptly for the Chiltern Hundreds.
According to election expert David Boothroyd on the VoteUK forum, there's nothing to stop Eddie Hughes standing for Tamworth while still MP for Walsall North, and if he wins Tamworth he could then resign as MP for Walsall North. Doesn't solve the problem of a Walsall North by-election the Tories don't want though.
A new French poll shows Marine Le Pen’s popularity rating has increased by 10% in the last two years and a majority believe it’s probable that she will win the next election.
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
Well said.
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.
Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.
Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.
If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?
Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.
It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.
Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.
No, its not obvious, you only think its obvious as you are superficially paying attention only to the top of the iceberg.
The iceberg effect is worth remembering for almost any business or industry. The visible bit you are seeing is only a tiny fraction of what is happening and what happens below the surface matters.
No, each van doesn't travel five times the distance. If the bulk of the distance is primarily between the depot and the relevant postcode area, then going to five neighbouring estates within the same postcode area is miniscule 'extra' mileage. Being efficient getting from A to B is the bulk of the relevant efficiency, not from B1 to B4.
I can get 4 different deliveries to my house in the same day. But if those 4 deliveries are coming from 4 different places - and if those vans are all filled with drop offs near to me - then each of those vans is operating efficiently.
But they wouldn't be coming from four different places if there was a monopoly provider.
Yes they would. Currently you have goods coming from all over the country, do you think they should all be in the same place? Would that be more efficient?
Take Widnes, in Liverpool City Region but in Warrington's postal area for the Royal Mail. There are sorting offices in Liverpool and Warrington.
If someone from Widnes orders a good from a business in Liverpool it is more efficient to send a full van from Liverpool to Widnes to drop off those goods.
What do you propose instead? Send the van from Liverpool, through and past Widnes into Warrington to have the goods resorted in Warrington before being sent out for a second time back into Widnes?
How is that "more" efficient?
Ever seen the network for one of the couriers? It's hub and spoke as well.
Of course in a generalised sense, but in a more exact sense with Amazon at least the hubs and spokes overlap. Which is efficient, not inefficient.
You can track which hub your parcels came from, and if you live between 2 hubs you can get parcels sent out from either of them.
I can get multiple deliveries in a day, not because they came from multiple carriers, but from the same carrier but from different points of origin.
🔵TAMWORTH: there are rumours Chris Pincher will resign as an MP in the next day or so and not go through with the likely humiliation of the Commons voting to suspend him, and then a recall petition. That would enable by-elections in both Mid-Beds & Tamworth on 12 October."
The Conservatives already have their candidate in place. Oh wait.....
Will we also have a by-election at the same time in Walsall North then? Maybe not, in which case Eddie Hughes's future political career will depend on the Conservatives losing the Tamworth by-election.
"He announced in March 2023 that he would stand down as MP for Walsall North at the next general election.[26] Walsall North is set to be dissolved by the 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies.[27] In June 2023, he was selected as the Conservative Party prospective parliamentary candidate for Tamworth, a safe seat for the Conservatives which elected Chris Pincher in the 2010, 2015, 2017, and 2019 general elections.[28]"
Current car* is the first we've had with stop-start, electric hand brake, auto-hold, auto full beam etc. I love all of it. I never saw the point of electric hand brakes before having one, but it's really weird driving one with a manual hand brake now.
Yup
My current car has one, and it's brilliant, but I had a loaner recently with the 'new improved version', and I hate it
🔵TAMWORTH: there are rumours Chris Pincher will resign as an MP in the next day or so and not go through with the likely humiliation of the Commons voting to suspend him, and then a recall petition. That would enable by-elections in both Mid-Beds & Tamworth on 12 October."
The Conservatives already have their candidate in place. Oh wait.....
Will we also have a by-election at the same time in Walsall North then? Maybe not, in which case Eddie Hughes's future political career will depend on the Conservatives losing the Tamworth by-election.
"He announced in March 2023 that he would stand down as MP for Walsall North at the next general election.[26] Walsall North is set to be dissolved by the 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies.[27] In June 2023, he was selected as the Conservative Party prospective parliamentary candidate for Tamworth, a safe seat for the Conservatives which elected Chris Pincher in the 2010, 2015, 2017, and 2019 general elections.[28]"
As I just mentioned below, there's nothing to stop him standing for Tamworth while still MP for Walsall North. If he won Tamworth he could then resign as MP for Walsall North, a seat which is being abolished at the next GE.
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.
They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.
I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).
It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.
Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.
I wonder how yours is implemented? The Start/Stop on ours will only kick in if the vehicle is in neutral & the clutch up. Put the clutch down again & it starts the engine before you’ve got first gear engaged. It’s surprisingly natural in use.
Any implementation that cuts the engine out altogether during normal driving is broken, surely? (Excepting the normal case where the ECU cuts fuel to the engine when you run downhill - all the usual driver aids like power steering & brake assist still work in that case.)
I think the problem is that my car:
1 - Is a semi-automatic (VAG DSG) gearbox 2 - Has auto-coasting on lifting the accelerator
So technically it is in neutral with the clutch up even though it is still moving, which you wouldn't normally be doing with manual gears.
I prefer to have the auto-coasting than the auto-cutout , so I have to disable the latter. I suspect it is a bug that VAG don't know how to fix, because the auto-cutout is EU mandated.
1. DSG is fully automatic, not semi-automatic. 2. Adaptive cruise control (if you have it) is your friend here. When in heavy traffic it will follow the car in front, slow when it does, speed up when it moves away, stop if the car in front stop, and stop the engine, then re-start the engine when the car in front begins to move again. I wish I'd had ACC when I was commuting along the M62 every day - I could have got an extra 30 mins of sleep every morning on that commute.
It can be selected as semi-automatic if you want to play with the gears, although the clutch(es) are fully automatic.
I have no problem with the concept of S/S if the starter/battery are up to it. I'd definitely keep it enabled in a manual car and do re-enable it sometimes in urban traffic although not if there are many roundabouts.
I'm not sure I'd like ACC though - you need at least something to keep you awake. Besides, it is only as efficient as the car in front, which often isn't very. You still get auto-braking in most cars now (although it is very last minute and you'd probably still hit things).
Technically DSG is manual, not automatic. Dual clutches instead of a torque converter or band drive means it is designed like a manual box, albeit one where the computer operates the clutches.
Its pedantry, I know. Its like when I see my Tesla described as an "automatic". It isn't.
Yes, forward is forward and reverse is reverse - no automation there.
DSG is a bit tricky to label except when it goes wrong. Then it simply becomes "expensive".
I'm not sure what by brother-in-law's collection of DAF elastobandomatic Volvos would be classified as. Insane, I think.
Sorry if this has already been done. At first glance the strangest thing about the polling figures in the article is the minimal movement from Tory to LD.
It needs some maths, as this mainly only affects a particular group of constituencies (Tory v LD ones), but less than 6% and relegated to 'Others' seems odd.
🔵TAMWORTH: there are rumours Chris Pincher will resign as an MP in the next day or so and not go through with the likely humiliation of the Commons voting to suspend him, and then a recall petition. That would enable by-elections in both Mid-Beds & Tamworth on 12 October."
Could that allow Labour and LDs to divide and rule? Tamworth was Labour until 2010.
Tamworth not an easy Labour gain, as with a lot of the Midlands has swung much more Blue since it's days as Staffordshire SE, where Labour gained on an unnecessarily massive swing in 1996. That is now the swing needed.
Local election results (complicated by the Lichfield portion of the seat last voting in 2021), suggest it sits around midway between Selby and Uxbridge in difficulty. Which suggests, at the moment, a Labour win, but close.
The Lichfield bit did actually vote in 2023 - mainly Tory with one Lib Dem gain from them.
The larger Tamworth bit is up in thirds, but Labour had a very good performance in May, presumably in anticipation of a by-election (seven gains to bring them to eight, while the Tories fell to two - that's flattering to Labour looking at actual votes, but good nonetheless).
Personally, I think it's quite a bit easier than Selby for Labour despite similar majorities on paper in 2019. They've held it fairly recently and have had quite a lot of notice this was coming. Not a total shoo-in, but they'd be disappointed not to get it.
- Paula Vennells was appointed CEO in 2012. The then Secretary of State for Business was Vince Cable. - She will appear before the inquiry.
The current session is to deal with the lawyers. This is actually very important because three very significant parts of this scandal relate to:-
(1) The failures of the in-house investigators and lawyers, both in investigating the supposed "frauds", bringing the prosecutions, in relation to disclosure, their understanding and use of expert evidence and their behaviour during the appeals. The role of the Law Commission also needs looking at because it came up with the decision (a catastrophically stupid one) that computer evidence should be automatically accepted as accurate unless proved otherwise. This effectively reverses the burden of proof and makes it very hard, if not impossible for a defendant in a trial on charges like these.
(2) The behaviour of judges and others in the criminal justice system. The role of David Neuberger, former Master of the Rolls and a Supreme Court judge needs some explaining, for instance.
(3) The behaviour of the lawyers, both internal and external, in relation to the compensation schemes and the inquiry.
There is much to inquire into and, IMO, to criticise. My profession has not come out of this well and the findings will have important consequences for in-house investigators.
The legal world's dirty little secret is that the behaviour of lawyers and judges in previous scandals and miscarriages of justice (from at least the Birmingham 6 case onwards but also including Operation Countryman re police corruption even earlier) has not always been what it should be, to put it mildly. This has tended to be overlooked because there have been bigger villains - the police, forensic experts etc., - but it is about time that the lawyers faced their moment of truth and I hope that this inquiry will enable that.
I should add that I know and have worked with at least one of the experts being called to give evidence in this latest phase. Nice, able people. But even nice able people can make stupid mistakes and bad errors of judgment, especially when put in a position when everyone else is doing this, this is what the client wants and there is no/no effective process enabling them to behave well.
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
Well said.
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.
Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.
Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.
If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?
Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.
It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.
Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.
No, its not obvious, you only think its obvious as you are superficially paying attention only to the top of the iceberg.
The iceberg effect is worth remembering for almost any business or industry. The visible bit you are seeing is only a tiny fraction of what is happening and what happens below the surface matters.
No, each van doesn't travel five times the distance. If the bulk of the distance is primarily between the depot and the relevant postcode area, then going to five neighbouring estates within the same postcode area is miniscule 'extra' mileage. Being efficient getting from A to B is the bulk of the relevant efficiency, not from B1 to B4.
I can get 4 different deliveries to my house in the same day. But if those 4 deliveries are coming from 4 different places - and if those vans are all filled with drop offs near to me - then each of those vans is operating efficiently.
But they wouldn't be coming from four different places if there was a monopoly provider.
Yes they would. Currently you have goods coming from all over the country, do you think they should all be in the same place? Would that be more efficient?
Take Widnes, in Liverpool City Region but in Warrington's postal area for the Royal Mail. There are sorting offices in Liverpool and Warrington.
If someone from Widnes orders a good from a business in Liverpool it is more efficient to send a full van from Liverpool to Widnes to drop off those goods.
What do you propose instead? Send the van from Liverpool, through and past Widnes into Warrington to have the goods resorted in Warrington before being sent out for a second time back into Widnes?
How is that "more" efficient?
Let me give you a real world example. I live 15 miles north of the Brewdog factory. I sometimes order products from them which goes via their hub in the central belt. That is significantly more efficient than being delivered to me directly.
It is very simple why that is the case. When you run a factory operation you need to ensure the smoothest possible dispatch of products out of the warehouse. That means a regular movement of stock, and to keep the logistics costs as low as possible you want the volume moved to be as high as possible.
My 48 pack of Punk IPA is produced and stacked onto a pallet which goes on a full vehicle down to a massive warehouse. From there volumes can be broken down into smaller orders, and ecommerce picks taken.
If Brewdog were still a small operation then of course you pick and dispatch from there. One project I have live at the moment is ecommerce fulfilment - I literally pick, pack and dispatch customer orders. That is efficient because there are a small and manageable number of orders. But if there were hundreds of orders then the operation would go to a specialist fulfilment house. So if I had an order to go to a nearby town it would then be more efficient for all the products to go to the fulfilment house and then be sent back.
Speaking of Truss, I knew there was something a bit odd about one of the new MAFSUK brides, and now I've realised that one of them reminds me of Truss. I can't unsee it.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
If the choice is rubbish, surely the answer isn't to have no choice, it's to somehow improve the choice.
Sure! And how do we as consumers do that? There are free market competitors and I have zero choice. Only the shipper can choose, and when they fulfil zillions of orders it is about cost. I am hardly going to not buy Lego because the use DPD even if I have to jump through hoops of fire to ensure that tosser contracting for DPD actually delivers.
If you want to be positive on the Conservatives, it's not unreasonable to assume that they get two-thirds of both the DK/WV and the Reform vote. In that case, they're getting about 70% of their previous vote out. Add a bit for new voters and switchers to Con (yes they do exist), and that works out at about 32-33%.
Which - especially if there's some anti-Conservative tactical voting - is probably not quite enough to prevent a Labour majority.
I have a gut feeling - nothing more - that whereas we've historically (since 92) assumed a 'shy Tory' vote hidden in the DK/WV, there'll be a 'shy anti-Tory' vote this time - the disaffection among Tory voters has got so far down into the core that there are solid Tory voters who can't even quite admit to themselves that they will be changing this time.
Quite possibly.
My Conservative vote in '97 was the electoral equivalent of a pity snog; both John Major and the candidate in Cambridge were obviously doomed, but decent enough to not deserve the Full Reluctant Conscript treatment.
I don't feel that this time, and I'm not sensing it either.
You were right to support John Major, a vastly underrated PM.
Not sure many would say the same for Sunak. You may well be right that the 'core vote' (running at about 28% at the moment) may not even bother to turn out in the way it normally does.
When are those spread firms going to put up some seat numbers?
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
Well said.
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.
Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.
Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.
If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?
Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.
It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.
Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.
No, its not obvious, you only think its obvious as you are superficially paying attention only to the top of the iceberg.
The iceberg effect is worth remembering for almost any business or industry. The visible bit you are seeing is only a tiny fraction of what is happening and what happens below the surface matters.
No, each van doesn't travel five times the distance. If the bulk of the distance is primarily between the depot and the relevant postcode area, then going to five neighbouring estates within the same postcode area is miniscule 'extra' mileage. Being efficient getting from A to B is the bulk of the relevant efficiency, not from B1 to B4.
I can get 4 different deliveries to my house in the same day. But if those 4 deliveries are coming from 4 different places - and if those vans are all filled with drop offs near to me - then each of those vans is operating efficiently.
But they wouldn't be coming from four different places if there was a monopoly provider.
Yes they would. Currently you have goods coming from all over the country, do you think they should all be in the same place? Would that be more efficient?
Take Widnes, in Liverpool City Region but in Warrington's postal area for the Royal Mail. There are sorting offices in Liverpool and Warrington.
If someone from Widnes orders a good from a business in Liverpool it is more efficient to send a full van from Liverpool to Widnes to drop off those goods.
What do you propose instead? Send the van from Liverpool, through and past Widnes into Warrington to have the goods resorted in Warrington before being sent out for a second time back into Widnes?
How is that "more" efficient?
Let me give you a real world example. I live 15 miles north of the Brewdog factory. I sometimes order products from them which goes via their hub in the central belt. That is significantly more efficient than being delivered to me directly.
It is very simple why that is the case. When you run a factory operation you need to ensure the smoothest possible dispatch of products out of the warehouse. That means a regular movement of stock, and to keep the logistics costs as low as possible you want the volume moved to be as high as possible.
My 48 pack of Punk IPA is produced and stacked onto a pallet which goes on a full vehicle down to a massive warehouse. From there volumes can be broken down into smaller orders, and ecommerce picks taken.
If Brewdog were still a small operation then of course you pick and dispatch from there. One project I have live at the moment is ecommerce fulfilment - I literally pick, pack and dispatch customer orders. That is efficient because there are a small and manageable number of orders. But if there were hundreds of orders then the operation would go to a specialist fulfilment house. So if I had an order to go to a nearby town it would then be more efficient for all the products to go to the fulfilment house and then be sent back.
Off topic: One more potential disaster for you to worry about: "A significant increase in Asian hornet sightings in the United Kingdom is raising alarm because of concerns that the hornets could ravage local bee populations.
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
Well said.
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.
Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.
Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.
If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?
Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.
It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.
Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.
No, its not obvious, you only think its obvious as you are superficially paying attention only to the top of the iceberg.
The iceberg effect is worth remembering for almost any business or industry. The visible bit you are seeing is only a tiny fraction of what is happening and what happens below the surface matters.
No, each van doesn't travel five times the distance. If the bulk of the distance is primarily between the depot and the relevant postcode area, then going to five neighbouring estates within the same postcode area is miniscule 'extra' mileage. Being efficient getting from A to B is the bulk of the relevant efficiency, not from B1 to B4.
I can get 4 different deliveries to my house in the same day. But if those 4 deliveries are coming from 4 different places - and if those vans are all filled with drop offs near to me - then each of those vans is operating efficiently.
But they wouldn't be coming from four different places if there was a monopoly provider.
Yes they would. Currently you have goods coming from all over the country, do you think they should all be in the same place? Would that be more efficient?
Take Widnes, in Liverpool City Region but in Warrington's postal area for the Royal Mail. There are sorting offices in Liverpool and Warrington.
If someone from Widnes orders a good from a business in Liverpool it is more efficient to send a full van from Liverpool to Widnes to drop off those goods.
What do you propose instead? Send the van from Liverpool, through and past Widnes into Warrington to have the goods resorted in Warrington before being sent out for a second time back into Widnes?
How is that "more" efficient?
Let me give you a real world example. I live 15 miles north of the Brewdog factory. I sometimes order products from them which goes via their hub in the central belt. That is significantly more efficient than being delivered to me directly.
It is very simple why that is the case. When you run a factory operation you need to ensure the smoothest possible dispatch of products out of the warehouse. That means a regular movement of stock, and to keep the logistics costs as low as possible you want the volume moved to be as high as possible.
My 48 pack of Punk IPA is produced and stacked onto a pallet which goes on a full vehicle down to a massive warehouse. From there volumes can be broken down into smaller orders, and ecommerce picks taken.
If Brewdog were still a small operation then of course you pick and dispatch from there. One project I have live at the moment is ecommerce fulfilment - I literally pick, pack and dispatch customer orders. That is efficient because there are a small and manageable number of orders. But if there were hundreds of orders then the operation would go to a specialist fulfilment house. So if I had an order to go to a nearby town it would then be more efficient for all the products to go to the fulfilment house and then be sent back.
Yes, your Brewdog order goes from their central hub, but not all businesses have the same central hub.
Should a business in Liverpool also send their goods from their factory in Liverpool to the central belt of Scotland, or is more than one depot in the entire UK appropriate?
Businesses in Liverpool can send their goods to central hub depots in Liverpool, which can then go on to Widnes.
Other businesses can send their goods to depots in Warrington, which can then go on to Widnes.
There is no reason why full van loads for Widnes need to be transported from Liverpool to Warrington before being resorted and resent out.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Do you not understand - the experience depends on the last mile contractor. You say "DPD is great" based on your lived experience. I say DPD is the worst of the worst based on my own. We are both right.
My issue with DPD isn't just that my local contractor is a pillock. It is how DPD work - not an issue for you if you have no issues.
DPD repeatedly try to deliver my stuff in the wrong village. The app which their contractors use has incorrect GPS information - they have shown me. So you try and fix this with DPD. Finding anyone in the UK who isn't on the end of a premium phone line is hard. When you manage it they say "use our app".
So I download their app and take pictures of my house (which is prominent in our village on a main road, so hardly hidden away) and place a pin on the map. A load of old faff. So that their guy will know where you are. Does it make a difference? No!
You say that as a consumer I can go elsewhere? How - I place an order and the shipper books whichever courier firm is contracted. I do not choose, they do.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Hermes/Evri are uniformly crap. DPD it varies according to their local driver, and some of them are good, but it's a bit random. I've had terrible ones.
Rivals have popped up because they're cheaper for the sender, and it's the sender who chooses the service, while the receiver suffers the consequences if they choose Hermes/Evri.
Off topic: One more potential disaster for you to worry about: "A significant increase in Asian hornet sightings in the United Kingdom is raising alarm because of concerns that the hornets could ravage local bee populations.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Do you not understand - the experience depends on the last mile contractor. You say "DPD is great" based on your lived experience. I say DPD is the worst of the worst based on my own. We are both right.
My issue with DPD isn't just that my local contractor is a pillock. It is how DPD work - not an issue for you if you have no issues.
DPD repeatedly try to deliver my stuff in the wrong village. The app which their contractors use has incorrect GPS information - they have shown me. So you try and fix this with DPD. Finding anyone in the UK who isn't on the end of a premium phone line is hard. When you manage it they say "use our app".
So I download their app and take pictures of my house (which is prominent in our village on a main road, so hardly hidden away) and place a pin on the map. A load of old faff. So that their guy will know where you are. Does it make a difference? No!
You say that as a consumer I can go elsewhere? How - I place an order and the shipper books whichever courier firm is contracted. I do not choose, they do.
If the shipper uses a distribution company you dislike, you can order from someone else instead. Retail isn't a monopoly.
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
Well said.
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.
Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.
Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.
If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?
Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.
It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.
Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.
No, its not obvious, you only think its obvious as you are superficially paying attention only to the top of the iceberg.
The iceberg effect is worth remembering for almost any business or industry. The visible bit you are seeing is only a tiny fraction of what is happening and what happens below the surface matters.
No, each van doesn't travel five times the distance. If the bulk of the distance is primarily between the depot and the relevant postcode area, then going to five neighbouring estates within the same postcode area is miniscule 'extra' mileage. Being efficient getting from A to B is the bulk of the relevant efficiency, not from B1 to B4.
I can get 4 different deliveries to my house in the same day. But if those 4 deliveries are coming from 4 different places - and if those vans are all filled with drop offs near to me - then each of those vans is operating efficiently.
But they wouldn't be coming from four different places if there was a monopoly provider.
Yes they would. Currently you have goods coming from all over the country, do you think they should all be in the same place? Would that be more efficient?
Take Widnes, in Liverpool City Region but in Warrington's postal area for the Royal Mail. There are sorting offices in Liverpool and Warrington.
If someone from Widnes orders a good from a business in Liverpool it is more efficient to send a full van from Liverpool to Widnes to drop off those goods.
What do you propose instead? Send the van from Liverpool, through and past Widnes into Warrington to have the goods resorted in Warrington before being sent out for a second time back into Widnes?
How is that "more" efficient?
Let me give you a real world example. I live 15 miles north of the Brewdog factory. I sometimes order products from them which goes via their hub in the central belt. That is significantly more efficient than being delivered to me directly.
It is very simple why that is the case. When you run a factory operation you need to ensure the smoothest possible dispatch of products out of the warehouse. That means a regular movement of stock, and to keep the logistics costs as low as possible you want the volume moved to be as high as possible.
My 48 pack of Punk IPA is produced and stacked onto a pallet which goes on a full vehicle down to a massive warehouse. From there volumes can be broken down into smaller orders, and ecommerce picks taken.
If Brewdog were still a small operation then of course you pick and dispatch from there. One project I have live at the moment is ecommerce fulfilment - I literally pick, pack and dispatch customer orders. That is efficient because there are a small and manageable number of orders. But if there were hundreds of orders then the operation would go to a specialist fulfilment house. So if I had an order to go to a nearby town it would then be more efficient for all the products to go to the fulfilment house and then be sent back.
Yes, your Brewdog order goes from their central hub, but not all businesses have the same central hub.
Should a business in Liverpool also send their goods from their factory in Liverpool to the central belt of Scotland, or is more than one depot in the entire UK appropriate?
Businesses in Liverpool can send their goods to central hub depots in Liverpool, which can then go on to Widnes.
Other businesses can send their goods to depots in Warrington, which can then go on to Widnes.
There is no reason why full van loads for Widnes need to be transported from Liverpool to Warrington before being resorted and resent out.
Is your hypothetical example real world? I can book courier collection from point A to be delivered to point B. It does not go direct - couriers use hub and spoke distribution. If I then book a courier to shift items in bulk it still goes via their sorting centre.
So your business in Liverpool, when you say it is transporting its goods to Widnes, is it doing so itself? That might make sense if so. Otherwise, no. You have a logistics partner and they quote a price to pick up at A and deliver to B. You don't get to tell them which route to drive.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Do you not understand - the experience depends on the last mile contractor. You say "DPD is great" based on your lived experience. I say DPD is the worst of the worst based on my own. We are both right.
My issue with DPD isn't just that my local contractor is a pillock. It is how DPD work - not an issue for you if you have no issues.
DPD repeatedly try to deliver my stuff in the wrong village. The app which their contractors use has incorrect GPS information - they have shown me. So you try and fix this with DPD. Finding anyone in the UK who isn't on the end of a premium phone line is hard. When you manage it they say "use our app".
So I download their app and take pictures of my house (which is prominent in our village on a main road, so hardly hidden away) and place a pin on the map. A load of old faff. So that their guy will know where you are. Does it make a difference? No!
You say that as a consumer I can go elsewhere? How - I place an order and the shipper books whichever courier firm is contracted. I do not choose, they do.
If the shipper uses a distribution company you dislike, you can order from someone else instead. Retail isn't a monopoly.
Yes. I can buy Lego from that other company who isn't Lego because DPD are shit. Its a free market, just play with other toys.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Do you not understand - the experience depends on the last mile contractor. You say "DPD is great" based on your lived experience. I say DPD is the worst of the worst based on my own. We are both right.
My issue with DPD isn't just that my local contractor is a pillock. It is how DPD work - not an issue for you if you have no issues.
DPD repeatedly try to deliver my stuff in the wrong village. The app which their contractors use has incorrect GPS information - they have shown me. So you try and fix this with DPD. Finding anyone in the UK who isn't on the end of a premium phone line is hard. When you manage it they say "use our app".
So I download their app and take pictures of my house (which is prominent in our village on a main road, so hardly hidden away) and place a pin on the map. A load of old faff. So that their guy will know where you are. Does it make a difference? No!
You say that as a consumer I can go elsewhere? How - I place an order and the shipper books whichever courier firm is contracted. I do not choose, they do.
It is worth complaining to the supplier if you are persistently unhappy with one particular delivery company. They do take notice of the complaints - even somewhere like Amazon. I suspect complaints about Hermes to suppliers contributed to their abandoning a tarnished name, which was victory of sorts.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Do you not understand - the experience depends on the last mile contractor. You say "DPD is great" based on your lived experience. I say DPD is the worst of the worst based on my own. We are both right.
My issue with DPD isn't just that my local contractor is a pillock. It is how DPD work - not an issue for you if you have no issues.
DPD repeatedly try to deliver my stuff in the wrong village. The app which their contractors use has incorrect GPS information - they have shown me. So you try and fix this with DPD. Finding anyone in the UK who isn't on the end of a premium phone line is hard. When you manage it they say "use our app".
So I download their app and take pictures of my house (which is prominent in our village on a main road, so hardly hidden away) and place a pin on the map. A load of old faff. So that their guy will know where you are. Does it make a difference? No!
You say that as a consumer I can go elsewhere? How - I place an order and the shipper books whichever courier firm is contracted. I do not choose, they do.
If the shipper uses a distribution company you dislike, you can order from someone else instead. Retail isn't a monopoly.
Yes. I can buy Lego from that other company who isn't Lego because DPD are shit. Its a free market, just play with other toys.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Hermes/Evri are uniformly crap. DPD it varies according to their local driver, and some of them are good, but it's a bit random. I've had terrible ones.
Rivals have popped up because they're cheaper for the sender, and it's the sender who chooses the service, while the receiver suffers the consequences if they choose Hermes/Evri.
In defence of Evri I send dozens of shipments with them. They are as quick as anyone else and there are very few reported issues from customers. And they are cheaper than the competition.
That isn't to say that last mile contractors with Evri are good everywhere! Its a lottery. But Evri are less hassle than DHL when it comes to ecommerce shipping. Which sounds like it must be wrong. But in my experience it is true.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Do you not understand - the experience depends on the last mile contractor. You say "DPD is great" based on your lived experience. I say DPD is the worst of the worst based on my own. We are both right.
My issue with DPD isn't just that my local contractor is a pillock. It is how DPD work - not an issue for you if you have no issues.
DPD repeatedly try to deliver my stuff in the wrong village. The app which their contractors use has incorrect GPS information - they have shown me. So you try and fix this with DPD. Finding anyone in the UK who isn't on the end of a premium phone line is hard. When you manage it they say "use our app".
So I download their app and take pictures of my house (which is prominent in our village on a main road, so hardly hidden away) and place a pin on the map. A load of old faff. So that their guy will know where you are. Does it make a difference? No!
You say that as a consumer I can go elsewhere? How - I place an order and the shipper books whichever courier firm is contracted. I do not choose, they do.
If the shipper uses a distribution company you dislike, you can order from someone else instead. Retail isn't a monopoly.
Yes. I can buy Lego from that other company who isn't Lego because DPD are shit. Its a free market, just play with other toys.
- Paula Vennells was appointed CEO in 2012. The then Secretary of State for Business was Vince Cable. - She will appear before the inquiry.
The current session is to deal with the lawyers. This is actually very important because three very significant parts of this scandal relate to:-
(1) The failures of the in-house investigators and lawyers, both in investigating the supposed "frauds", bringing the prosecutions, in relation to disclosure, their understanding and use of expert evidence and their behaviour during the appeals. The role of the Law Commission also needs looking at because it came up with the decision (a catastrophically stupid one) that computer evidence should be automatically accepted as accurate unless proved otherwise. This effectively reverses the burden of proof and makes it very hard, if not impossible for a defendant in a trial on charges like these.
(2) The behaviour of judges and others in the criminal justice system. The role of David Neuberger, former Master of the Rolls and a Supreme Court judge needs some explaining, for instance.
(3) The behaviour of the lawyers, both internal and external, in relation to the compensation schemes and the inquiry.
There is much to inquire into and, IMO, to criticise. My profession has not come out of this well and the findings will have important consequences for in-house investigators.
The legal world's dirty little secret is that the behaviour of lawyers and judges in previous scandals and miscarriages of justice (from at least the Birmingham 6 case onwards but also including Operation Countryman re police corruption even earlier) has not always been what it should be, to put it mildly. This has tended to be overlooked because there have been bigger villains - the police, forensic experts etc., - but it is about time that the lawyers faced their moment of truth and I hope that this inquiry will enable that.
I should add that I know and have worked with at least one of the experts being called to give evidence in this latest phase. Nice, able people. But even nice able people can make stupid mistakes and bad errors of judgment, especially when put in a position when everyone else is doing this, this is what the client wants and there is no/no effective process enabling them to behave well.
Thanks, Cyclefree. I am learning more about this from you than from our heroic Press, and the media coverage. It is in my view the worst public scandal of my lifetime and I sense that the establishment is deliberately dragging its feet because it knows that any just settlement will be very, very expensive. It would also likely result in the imprisonment of many of those culpable. Never mind. As long as people are asking questions,there is hope.
Cable must answer questions, of course, but I don't suppose he was the one who trawled for suitable candidates. Prima facie, Vennells' qualifications at the time looked thin. Do you think we will find out how the selection process worked and what made her appear the strongest candidate?
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
Well said.
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.
Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.
Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.
If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?
Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.
It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.
Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.
No, its not obvious, you only think its obvious as you are superficially paying attention only to the top of the iceberg.
The iceberg effect is worth remembering for almost any business or industry. The visible bit you are seeing is only a tiny fraction of what is happening and what happens below the surface matters.
No, each van doesn't travel five times the distance. If the bulk of the distance is primarily between the depot and the relevant postcode area, then going to five neighbouring estates within the same postcode area is miniscule 'extra' mileage. Being efficient getting from A to B is the bulk of the relevant efficiency, not from B1 to B4.
I can get 4 different deliveries to my house in the same day. But if those 4 deliveries are coming from 4 different places - and if those vans are all filled with drop offs near to me - then each of those vans is operating efficiently.
But they wouldn't be coming from four different places if there was a monopoly provider.
Yes they would. Currently you have goods coming from all over the country, do you think they should all be in the same place? Would that be more efficient?
Take Widnes, in Liverpool City Region but in Warrington's postal area for the Royal Mail. There are sorting offices in Liverpool and Warrington.
If someone from Widnes orders a good from a business in Liverpool it is more efficient to send a full van from Liverpool to Widnes to drop off those goods.
What do you propose instead? Send the van from Liverpool, through and past Widnes into Warrington to have the goods resorted in Warrington before being sent out for a second time back into Widnes?
How is that "more" efficient?
Let me give you a real world example. I live 15 miles north of the Brewdog factory. I sometimes order products from them which goes via their hub in the central belt. That is significantly more efficient than being delivered to me directly.
It is very simple why that is the case. When you run a factory operation you need to ensure the smoothest possible dispatch of products out of the warehouse. That means a regular movement of stock, and to keep the logistics costs as low as possible you want the volume moved to be as high as possible.
My 48 pack of Punk IPA is produced and stacked onto a pallet which goes on a full vehicle down to a massive warehouse. From there volumes can be broken down into smaller orders, and ecommerce picks taken.
If Brewdog were still a small operation then of course you pick and dispatch from there. One project I have live at the moment is ecommerce fulfilment - I literally pick, pack and dispatch customer orders. That is efficient because there are a small and manageable number of orders. But if there were hundreds of orders then the operation would go to a specialist fulfilment house. So if I had an order to go to a nearby town it would then be more efficient for all the products to go to the fulfilment house and then be sent back.
Yes, your Brewdog order goes from their central hub, but not all businesses have the same central hub.
Should a business in Liverpool also send their goods from their factory in Liverpool to the central belt of Scotland, or is more than one depot in the entire UK appropriate?
Businesses in Liverpool can send their goods to central hub depots in Liverpool, which can then go on to Widnes.
Other businesses can send their goods to depots in Warrington, which can then go on to Widnes.
There is no reason why full van loads for Widnes need to be transported from Liverpool to Warrington before being resorted and resent out.
Is your hypothetical example real world? I can book courier collection from point A to be delivered to point B. It does not go direct - couriers use hub and spoke distribution. If I then book a courier to shift items in bulk it still goes via their sorting centre.
So your business in Liverpool, when you say it is transporting its goods to Widnes, is it doing so itself? That might make sense if so. Otherwise, no. You have a logistics partner and they quote a price to pick up at A and deliver to B. You don't get to tell them which route to drive.
Yes, its real world.
The point is there's more than 1 hub available - and for good reason, not bad reasons.
Even without looking at other logistics firms, Amazon alone have nearly a dozen hubs in the North West and the spokes they will distribute to from them overlap, for good reason.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Do you not understand - the experience depends on the last mile contractor. You say "DPD is great" based on your lived experience. I say DPD is the worst of the worst based on my own. We are both right.
My issue with DPD isn't just that my local contractor is a pillock. It is how DPD work - not an issue for you if you have no issues.
DPD repeatedly try to deliver my stuff in the wrong village. The app which their contractors use has incorrect GPS information - they have shown me. So you try and fix this with DPD. Finding anyone in the UK who isn't on the end of a premium phone line is hard. When you manage it they say "use our app".
So I download their app and take pictures of my house (which is prominent in our village on a main road, so hardly hidden away) and place a pin on the map. A load of old faff. So that their guy will know where you are. Does it make a difference? No!
You say that as a consumer I can go elsewhere? How - I place an order and the shipper books whichever courier firm is contracted. I do not choose, they do.
If the shipper uses a distribution company you dislike, you can order from someone else instead. Retail isn't a monopoly.
Yes. I can buy Lego from that other company who isn't Lego because DPD are shit. Its a free market, just play with other toys.
Errrr. Multiple vendors of Lego?
For the sets which they sell exclusively?
There are very few exclusive lego sets that don't end up being available from John Lewis....
If you want to be positive on the Conservatives, it's not unreasonable to assume that they get two-thirds of both the DK/WV and the Reform vote. In that case, they're getting about 70% of their previous vote out. Add a bit for new voters and switchers to Con (yes they do exist), and that works out at about 32-33%.
Which - especially if there's some anti-Conservative tactical voting - is probably not quite enough to prevent a Labour majority.
I have a gut feeling - nothing more - that whereas we've historically (since 92) assumed a 'shy Tory' vote hidden in the DK/WV, there'll be a 'shy anti-Tory' vote this time - the disaffection among Tory voters has got so far down into the core that there are solid Tory voters who can't even quite admit to themselves that they will be changing this time.
Quite possibly.
My Conservative vote in '97 was the electoral equivalent of a pity snog; both John Major and the candidate in Cambridge were obviously doomed, but decent enough to not deserve the Full Reluctant Conscript treatment.
I don't feel that this time, and I'm not sensing it either.
You were right to support John Major, a vastly underrated PM.
Not sure many would say the same for Sunak. You may well be right that the 'core vote' (running at about 28% at the moment) may not even bother to turn out in the way it normally does.
When are those spread firms going to put up some seat numbers?
As I get told off for mentioning unweighted samples, I'd better not saying about Deltapoll.
OTOH - among all Conservative voters Sunak has a rati;ng of +7 while Starmer has a rating of +46 among Labour voters.
Among Conservative LEAVE voters, Sunak has a net +1 rating while among Conservative REMAIN voters, a group barely 40% of the Conservative LEAVE vote, Sunak has a +30 rating.
Sunak plays very well to a minority group within the Conservatives - Statmer is only -15 among Conservative REMAIN voters while -41 among LEAVE voters.
It seems REMAIN supporters just like people more or dislike them less or it's just an unweighted sub sample.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Do you not understand - the experience depends on the last mile contractor. You say "DPD is great" based on your lived experience. I say DPD is the worst of the worst based on my own. We are both right.
My issue with DPD isn't just that my local contractor is a pillock. It is how DPD work - not an issue for you if you have no issues.
DPD repeatedly try to deliver my stuff in the wrong village. The app which their contractors use has incorrect GPS information - they have shown me. So you try and fix this with DPD. Finding anyone in the UK who isn't on the end of a premium phone line is hard. When you manage it they say "use our app".
So I download their app and take pictures of my house (which is prominent in our village on a main road, so hardly hidden away) and place a pin on the map. A load of old faff. So that their guy will know where you are. Does it make a difference? No!
You say that as a consumer I can go elsewhere? How - I place an order and the shipper books whichever courier firm is contracted. I do not choose, they do.
If the shipper uses a distribution company you dislike, you can order from someone else instead. Retail isn't a monopoly.
Yes. I can buy Lego from that other company who isn't Lego because DPD are shit. Its a free market, just play with other toys.
I can buy Lego from Amazon, John Lewis, Argos or about a zillion other firms ...
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Do you not understand - the experience depends on the last mile contractor. You say "DPD is great" based on your lived experience. I say DPD is the worst of the worst based on my own. We are both right.
My issue with DPD isn't just that my local contractor is a pillock. It is how DPD work - not an issue for you if you have no issues.
DPD repeatedly try to deliver my stuff in the wrong village. The app which their contractors use has incorrect GPS information - they have shown me. So you try and fix this with DPD. Finding anyone in the UK who isn't on the end of a premium phone line is hard. When you manage it they say "use our app".
So I download their app and take pictures of my house (which is prominent in our village on a main road, so hardly hidden away) and place a pin on the map. A load of old faff. So that their guy will know where you are. Does it make a difference? No!
You say that as a consumer I can go elsewhere? How - I place an order and the shipper books whichever courier firm is contracted. I do not choose, they do.
If the shipper uses a distribution company you dislike, you can order from someone else instead. Retail isn't a monopoly.
That works- eventually- if enough of the distributor's customers complain to the distributor about the courier, or decide to go with a different distributor based on the courier used.
That might happen, eventually. In theory. But a shiny sixpence says it doesn't happen very often.
So distributors choose couriers on the basis of who is cheapest for them, irrespective of how they perform.
Textbook economic theory might well say that competition drives quality up and cost down. But if lived experience of courier services generally contradicts that, then we have to think about why theory isn't working. It's probably that a necessary but of feedback is broken.
For couriers, it's that the "I'll take my custom elsewhere" bit is too feeble to be useful. For infrastructure-heavy industries, it's that the nemesis (everything breaks) happens years or decades after the hubris (we can skimp on capital spend and take more cash now as profits).
- Paula Vennells was appointed CEO in 2012. The then Secretary of State for Business was Vince Cable. - She will appear before the inquiry.
The current session is to deal with the lawyers. This is actually very important because three very significant parts of this scandal relate to:-
(1) The failures of the in-house investigators and lawyers, both in investigating the supposed "frauds", bringing the prosecutions, in relation to disclosure, their understanding and use of expert evidence and their behaviour during the appeals. The role of the Law Commission also needs looking at because it came up with the decision (a catastrophically stupid one) that computer evidence should be automatically accepted as accurate unless proved otherwise. This effectively reverses the burden of proof and makes it very hard, if not impossible for a defendant in a trial on charges like these.
(2) The behaviour of judges and others in the criminal justice system. The role of David Neuberger, former Master of the Rolls and a Supreme Court judge needs some explaining, for instance.
(3) The behaviour of the lawyers, both internal and external, in relation to the compensation schemes and the inquiry.
There is much to inquire into and, IMO, to criticise. My profession has not come out of this well and the findings will have important consequences for in-house investigators.
The legal world's dirty little secret is that the behaviour of lawyers and judges in previous scandals and miscarriages of justice (from at least the Birmingham 6 case onwards but also including Operation Countryman re police corruption even earlier) has not always been what it should be, to put it mildly. This has tended to be overlooked because there have been bigger villains - the police, forensic experts etc., - but it is about time that the lawyers faced their moment of truth and I hope that this inquiry will enable that.
I should add that I know and have worked with at least one of the experts being called to give evidence in this latest phase. Nice, able people. But even nice able people can make stupid mistakes and bad errors of judgment, especially when put in a position when everyone else is doing this, this is what the client wants and there is no/no effective process enabling them to behave well.
Thanks, Cyclefree. I am learning more about this from you than from our heroic Press, and the media coverage. It is in my view the worst public scandal of my lifetime and I sense that the establishment is deliberately dragging its feet because it knows that any just settlement will be very, very expensive. It would also likely result in the imprisonment of many of those culpable. Never mind. As long as people are asking questions,there is hope.
Cable must answer questions, of course, but I don't suppose he was the one who trawled for suitable candidates. Prima facie, Vennells' qualifications at the time looked thin. Do you think we will find out how the selection process worked and what made her appear the strongest candidate?
Vennells’s background was marketing - originally a Unilever trainee - and she was recruited at a time when the PO was entering new competitive markets like banking and savings and broadband and foreign currency and they needed a CEO to front up all the marketing. She threw herself into all that and I suspect that the back office stuff concerning fraud and legal cases was a long way from her knowledge zone and she probably wasn’t much interested in it, expecting others to solve such problems for her. Not an excuse, of course, since the buck must go to the top, but I would expect her culpability to be lack of attention, interest and concern.
Sorry if this has already been done. At first glance the strangest thing about the polling figures in the article is the minimal movement from Tory to LD.
It needs some maths, as this mainly only affects a particular group of constituencies (Tory v LD ones), but less than 6% and relegated to 'Others' seems odd.
People want to kick the Tories out, more than they want Labour or Lib Dems. 80%+ of seats that means voting Labour over Lib Dem.
This is going to be the like the Horsemeat scandal of 2012/2013.. we'll end up finding RAAC in hospitals, barracks, museums..
I think Dartford have highlighted the scale of the problem in their notes / email
We’re sorry to announce that it has become necessary to suspend performances at The Orchard Theatre, Dartford with immediate effect.
When The Orchard Theatre was built in the early 1980s, reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) was considered a cheap and lightweight alternative to traditional concrete and the theatre was one of thousands of public buildings to use it during construction.
And because it's the 1980's it's all Thatcher's fault (I'm joking it's one of those things)..
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Do you not understand - the experience depends on the last mile contractor. You say "DPD is great" based on your lived experience. I say DPD is the worst of the worst based on my own. We are both right.
My issue with DPD isn't just that my local contractor is a pillock. It is how DPD work - not an issue for you if you have no issues.
DPD repeatedly try to deliver my stuff in the wrong village. The app which their contractors use has incorrect GPS information - they have shown me. So you try and fix this with DPD. Finding anyone in the UK who isn't on the end of a premium phone line is hard. When you manage it they say "use our app".
So I download their app and take pictures of my house (which is prominent in our village on a main road, so hardly hidden away) and place a pin on the map. A load of old faff. So that their guy will know where you are. Does it make a difference? No!
You say that as a consumer I can go elsewhere? How - I place an order and the shipper books whichever courier firm is contracted. I do not choose, they do.
If the shipper uses a distribution company you dislike, you can order from someone else instead. Retail isn't a monopoly.
That works- eventually- if enough of the distributor's customers complain to the distributor about the courier, or decide to go with a different distributor based on the courier used.
That might happen, eventually. In theory. But a shiny sixpence says it doesn't happen very often.
So distributors choose couriers on the basis of who is cheapest for them, irrespective of how they perform.
Textbook economic theory might well say that competition drives quality up and cost down. But if lived experience of courier services generally contradicts that, then we have to think about why theory isn't working. It's probably that a necessary but of feedback is broken.
For couriers, it's that the "I'll take my custom elsewhere" bit is too feeble to be useful. For infrastructure-heavy industries, it's that the nemesis (everything breaks) happens years or decades after the hubris (we can skimp on capital spend and take more cash now as profits).
There's a reason many firms don't use Evri, even if they're cheaper. They don't want to lose the customers.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Hermes/Evri are uniformly crap. DPD it varies according to their local driver, and some of them are good, but it's a bit random. I've had terrible ones.
Rivals have popped up because they're cheaper for the sender, and it's the sender who chooses the service, while the receiver suffers the consequences if they choose Hermes/Evri.
In defence of Evri I send dozens of shipments with them. They are as quick as anyone else and there are very few reported issues from customers. And they are cheaper than the competition.
That isn't to say that last mile contractors with Evri are good everywhere! Its a lottery. But Evri are less hassle than DHL when it comes to ecommerce shipping. Which sounds like it must be wrong. But in my experience it is true.
I also find Evri better than DPD. Particularly the disingenuous claims DPD makes that they’ll only make one delivery attempt before making you travel to a shop ‘to protect the environment’. It’s transparent nonsense.
Imo it’s also nonsense to say the consumer has choice because they can order from another retailer. There are many factors involved in choosing an online retailer, delivery is just one of them.
Choice would be allowing you to pick your delivery company at checkout. A few online retailers do this.
But as Blanche says it is one area where a single delivery company would bring many more benefits than drawbacks.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Do you not understand - the experience depends on the last mile contractor. You say "DPD is great" based on your lived experience. I say DPD is the worst of the worst based on my own. We are both right.
My issue with DPD isn't just that my local contractor is a pillock. It is how DPD work - not an issue for you if you have no issues.
DPD repeatedly try to deliver my stuff in the wrong village. The app which their contractors use has incorrect GPS information - they have shown me. So you try and fix this with DPD. Finding anyone in the UK who isn't on the end of a premium phone line is hard. When you manage it they say "use our app".
So I download their app and take pictures of my house (which is prominent in our village on a main road, so hardly hidden away) and place a pin on the map. A load of old faff. So that their guy will know where you are. Does it make a difference? No!
You say that as a consumer I can go elsewhere? How - I place an order and the shipper books whichever courier firm is contracted. I do not choose, they do.
In case it helps... you could maybe get that fixed by Googling ' "head of innovation" dpd uk '; seeing if you can find the guy's name; then using the standard email format, which is firstname.lastname@dpdgroup.co.uk, to explain your issue to him.
This is going to be the like the Horsemeat scandal of 2012/2013.. we'll end up finding RAAC in hospitals, barracks, museums..
I think Dartford have highlighted the scale of the problem in their notes / email
We’re sorry to announce that it has become necessary to suspend performances at The Orchard Theatre, Dartford with immediate effect.
When The Orchard Theatre was built in the early 1980s, reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) was considered a cheap and lightweight alternative to traditional concrete and the theatre was one of thousands of public buildings to use it during construction.
And because it's the 1980's it's all Thatcher's fault (I'm joking it's one of those things)..
Surely widely used in the private sector too?
I know no-one wants to hear this, but we are going to have to use some of these buildings in the time period between now and when we can get them all fixed.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Hermes/Evri are uniformly crap. DPD it varies according to their local driver, and some of them are good, but it's a bit random. I've had terrible ones.
Rivals have popped up because they're cheaper for the sender, and it's the sender who chooses the service, while the receiver suffers the consequences if they choose Hermes/Evri.
In defence of Evri I send dozens of shipments with them. They are as quick as anyone else and there are very few reported issues from customers. And they are cheaper than the competition.
That isn't to say that last mile contractors with Evri are good everywhere! Its a lottery. But Evri are less hassle than DHL when it comes to ecommerce shipping. Which sounds like it must be wrong. But in my experience it is true.
Yes, but they’re cheaper because they fish lower in the labour market and require their deliverers to use their own cars, for a petrol allowance, without being that concerned about their appearance or roadworthiness. I suspect, but don’t know, that they’re not even employees, but probably classified as self employed contractors, so that a lot of the liability risk is shifted away from the company. You get what you pay for….
From what I saw of them just recently in Germany, there, the Hermes employment and service model is completely different….
The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".
But all of these buildings were built and certified to the red tape of its day? 🤔
The RAAC thing reminds me of the value of cutting away red tape and making it easier to rebuild buildings to better standards rather than maintaining obsolete buildings built to the standards of yesteryear.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Hermes/Evri are uniformly crap. DPD it varies according to their local driver, and some of them are good, but it's a bit random. I've had terrible ones.
Rivals have popped up because they're cheaper for the sender, and it's the sender who chooses the service, while the receiver suffers the consequences if they choose Hermes/Evri.
In defence of Evri I send dozens of shipments with them. They are as quick as anyone else and there are very few reported issues from customers. And they are cheaper than the competition.
That isn't to say that last mile contractors with Evri are good everywhere! Its a lottery. But Evri are less hassle than DHL when it comes to ecommerce shipping. Which sounds like it must be wrong. But in my experience it is true.
The other thought on the joys of the free market vs a monopoly. Currently we have choice. And all the choices are equally shit. None of the private couriers are clearly better than any other - all have dramatically bad failings.
What is worse, consumers have zero choice which is used. If you order from Lego, its going to be DPD. Regardless of how terrible DPD are. And all seem to follow each other to impose the same crapola policies and restrictions - a cabal with no actual competition.
So why not make Royal Mail the monopoly carrier. At least if shit happens you can shout at your local postie. Mine says people complain to him about courier drop screw-ups as well...
"all the choices are equally shit"
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Hermes/Evri are uniformly crap. DPD it varies according to their local driver, and some of them are good, but it's a bit random. I've had terrible ones.
Rivals have popped up because they're cheaper for the sender, and it's the sender who chooses the service, while the receiver suffers the consequences if they choose Hermes/Evri.
In defence of Evri I send dozens of shipments with them. They are as quick as anyone else and there are very few reported issues from customers. And they are cheaper than the competition.
That isn't to say that last mile contractors with Evri are good everywhere! Its a lottery. But Evri are less hassle than DHL when it comes to ecommerce shipping. Which sounds like it must be wrong. But in my experience it is true.
Yes, but they’re cheaper because they fish lower in the labour market and require their deliverers to use their own cars, for a petrol allowance, without being that concerned about their appearance or roadworthiness. I suspect, but don’t know, that they’re not even employees, but probably classified as self employed contractors, so that a lot of the liability risk is shifted away from the company. You get what you pay for….
The final mile delivery is done by a 3rd party contractor. But that is the same with so many of them. DPD and DHL guys up here both confirmed they don't work for the company.
The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".
But all of these buildings were built and certified to the red tape of its day? 🤔
The RAAC thing reminds me of the value of cutting away red tape and making it easier to rebuild buildings to better standards rather than maintaining obsolete buildings built to the standards of yesteryear.
The latest from Putin: "The Western masters placed an ethnic Jew, a person with Jewish roots, at the head of Ukraine and this is how, in my opinion, they cover up the anti-human essence that is the foundation of the modern Ukrainian state."
It remains a possibility if the great collapsing schools scandal leads to a rapid collapse of the government. The latest stupid is this week's Education Secretary putting the blame on the schools.
- Paula Vennells was appointed CEO in 2012. The then Secretary of State for Business was Vince Cable. - She will appear before the inquiry.
The current session is to deal with the lawyers. This is actually very important because three very significant parts of this scandal relate to:-
(1) The failures of the in-house investigators and lawyers, both in investigating the supposed "frauds", bringing the prosecutions, in relation to disclosure, their understanding and use of expert evidence and their behaviour during the appeals. The role of the Law Commission also needs looking at because it came up with the decision (a catastrophically stupid one) that computer evidence should be automatically accepted as accurate unless proved otherwise. This effectively reverses the burden of proof and makes it very hard, if not impossible for a defendant in a trial on charges like these.
(2) The behaviour of judges and others in the criminal justice system. The role of David Neuberger, former Master of the Rolls and a Supreme Court judge needs some explaining, for instance.
(3) The behaviour of the lawyers, both internal and external, in relation to the compensation schemes and the inquiry.
There is much to inquire into and, IMO, to criticise. My profession has not come out of this well and the findings will have important consequences for in-house investigators.
The legal world's dirty little secret is that the behaviour of lawyers and judges in previous scandals and miscarriages of justice (from at least the Birmingham 6 case onwards but also including Operation Countryman re police corruption even earlier) has not always been what it should be, to put it mildly. This has tended to be overlooked because there have been bigger villains - the police, forensic experts etc., - but it is about time that the lawyers faced their moment of truth and I hope that this inquiry will enable that.
I should add that I know and have worked with at least one of the experts being called to give evidence in this latest phase. Nice, able people. But even nice able people can make stupid mistakes and bad errors of judgment, especially when put in a position when everyone else is doing this, this is what the client wants and there is no/no effective process enabling them to behave well.
I’m on record as being against sentences of imprisonment for nonviolent and non-dangerous offenders, but I’m willing to make an exception for the dozens of people, many of whom were in both my profession and yours, who were involved in this scandal.
It led to a number of suicides and bankruptcies, and no other punishment is really appropriate. Senior managers at the Post Office, at Fujitsu, and potentially at the Business Department, need to see the inside of a cell for this injustice.
This is going to be the like the Horsemeat scandal of 2012/2013.. we'll end up finding RAAC in hospitals, barracks, museums..
I think Dartford have highlighted the scale of the problem in their notes / email
We’re sorry to announce that it has become necessary to suspend performances at The Orchard Theatre, Dartford with immediate effect.
When The Orchard Theatre was built in the early 1980s, reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) was considered a cheap and lightweight alternative to traditional concrete and the theatre was one of thousands of public buildings to use it during construction.
And because it's the 1980's it's all Thatcher's fault (I'm joking it's one of those things)..
It’s actually possible, that this issue becoming much wider helps the government, being something that’s more difficult to pin on the current incumbents, rather than simply another old problem that’s surfaced.
This is going to be the like the Horsemeat scandal of 2012/2013.. we'll end up finding RAAC in hospitals, barracks, museums..
I think Dartford have highlighted the scale of the problem in their notes / email
We’re sorry to announce that it has become necessary to suspend performances at The Orchard Theatre, Dartford with immediate effect.
When The Orchard Theatre was built in the early 1980s, reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) was considered a cheap and lightweight alternative to traditional concrete and the theatre was one of thousands of public buildings to use it during construction.
And because it's the 1980's it's all Thatcher's fault (I'm joking it's one of those things)..
It’s actually possible, that this issue becoming much wider helps the government, being something that’s more difficult to pin on the current incumbents, rather than simply another old problem that’s surfaced.
It depends if they have Yousaf/SNP levels of political bad luck. If one of the schools Sunak failed to fix starts to collapse...
- Paula Vennells was appointed CEO in 2012. The then Secretary of State for Business was Vince Cable. - She will appear before the inquiry.
The current session is to deal with the lawyers. This is actually very important because three very significant parts of this scandal relate to:-
(1) The failures of the in-house investigators and lawyers, both in investigating the supposed "frauds", bringing the prosecutions, in relation to disclosure, their understanding and use of expert evidence and their behaviour during the appeals. The role of the Law Commission also needs looking at because it came up with the decision (a catastrophically stupid one) that computer evidence should be automatically accepted as accurate unless proved otherwise. This effectively reverses the burden of proof and makes it very hard, if not impossible for a defendant in a trial on charges like these.
(2) The behaviour of judges and others in the criminal justice system. The role of David Neuberger, former Master of the Rolls and a Supreme Court judge needs some explaining, for instance.
(3) The behaviour of the lawyers, both internal and external, in relation to the compensation schemes and the inquiry.
There is much to inquire into and, IMO, to criticise. My profession has not come out of this well and the findings will have important consequences for in-house investigators.
The legal world's dirty little secret is that the behaviour of lawyers and judges in previous scandals and miscarriages of justice (from at least the Birmingham 6 case onwards but also including Operation Countryman re police corruption even earlier) has not always been what it should be, to put it mildly. This has tended to be overlooked because there have been bigger villains - the police, forensic experts etc., - but it is about time that the lawyers faced their moment of truth and I hope that this inquiry will enable that.
I should add that I know and have worked with at least one of the experts being called to give evidence in this latest phase. Nice, able people. But even nice able people can make stupid mistakes and bad errors of judgment, especially when put in a position when everyone else is doing this, this is what the client wants and there is no/no effective process enabling them to behave well.
To paraphrase The Bard, first disbar (or UK equivalent) the lawyers complicit in this conspiracy to subvert justice.
The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".
All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.
See DTD683
I'm suggesting we need more.
Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passports of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.
Off topic: One more potential disaster for you to worry about: "A significant increase in Asian hornet sightings in the United Kingdom is raising alarm because of concerns that the hornets could ravage local bee populations.
The latest from Putin: "The Western masters placed an ethnic Jew, a person with Jewish roots, at the head of Ukraine and this is how, in my opinion, they cover up the anti-human essence that is the foundation of the modern Ukrainian state."
This is going to be the like the Horsemeat scandal of 2012/2013.. we'll end up finding RAAC in hospitals, barracks, museums..
I think Dartford have highlighted the scale of the problem in their notes / email
We’re sorry to announce that it has become necessary to suspend performances at The Orchard Theatre, Dartford with immediate effect.
When The Orchard Theatre was built in the early 1980s, reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) was considered a cheap and lightweight alternative to traditional concrete and the theatre was one of thousands of public buildings to use it during construction.
And because it's the 1980's it's all Thatcher's fault (I'm joking it's one of those things)..
It’s actually possible, that this issue becoming much wider helps the government, being something that’s more difficult to pin on the current incumbents, rather than simply another old problem that’s surfaced.
Possible. But it has the real potential to become the metaphor for 13 years of failure to deal with anything other than bloody Brexit.
- Paula Vennells was appointed CEO in 2012. The then Secretary of State for Business was Vince Cable. - She will appear before the inquiry.
The current session is to deal with the lawyers. This is actually very important because three very significant parts of this scandal relate to:-
(1) The failures of the in-house investigators and lawyers, both in investigating the supposed "frauds", bringing the prosecutions, in relation to disclosure, their understanding and use of expert evidence and their behaviour during the appeals. The role of the Law Commission also needs looking at because it came up with the decision (a catastrophically stupid one) that computer evidence should be automatically accepted as accurate unless proved otherwise. This effectively reverses the burden of proof and makes it very hard, if not impossible for a defendant in a trial on charges like these.
(2) The behaviour of judges and others in the criminal justice system. The role of David Neuberger, former Master of the Rolls and a Supreme Court judge needs some explaining, for instance.
(3) The behaviour of the lawyers, both internal and external, in relation to the compensation schemes and the inquiry.
There is much to inquire into and, IMO, to criticise. My profession has not come out of this well and the findings will have important consequences for in-house investigators.
The legal world's dirty little secret is that the behaviour of lawyers and judges in previous scandals and miscarriages of justice (from at least the Birmingham 6 case onwards but also including Operation Countryman re police corruption even earlier) has not always been what it should be, to put it mildly. This has tended to be overlooked because there have been bigger villains - the police, forensic experts etc., - but it is about time that the lawyers faced their moment of truth and I hope that this inquiry will enable that.
I should add that I know and have worked with at least one of the experts being called to give evidence in this latest phase. Nice, able people. But even nice able people can make stupid mistakes and bad errors of judgment, especially when put in a position when everyone else is doing this, this is what the client wants and there is no/no effective process enabling them to behave well.
Thanks, Cyclefree. I am learning more about this from you than from our heroic Press, and the media coverage. It is in my view the worst public scandal of my lifetime and I sense that the establishment is deliberately dragging its feet because it knows that any just settlement will be very, very expensive. It would also likely result in the imprisonment of many of those culpable. Never mind. As long as people are asking questions,there is hope.
Cable must answer questions, of course, but I don't suppose he was the one who trawled for suitable candidates. Prima facie, Vennells' qualifications at the time looked thin. Do you think we will find out how the selection process worked and what made her appear the strongest candidate?
Vennells’s background was marketing - originally a Unilever trainee - and she was recruited at a time when the PO was entering new competitive markets like banking and savings and broadband and foreign currency and they needed a CEO to front up all the marketing. She threw herself into all that and I suspect that the back office stuff concerning fraud and legal cases was a long way from her knowledge zone and she probably wasn’t much interested in it, expecting others to solve such problems for her. Not an excuse, of course, since the buck must go to the top, but I would expect her culpability to be lack of attention, interest and concern.
Thanks Ian. That helps makes sense of things. It's no excuse, of course, but it does put them into context.
It remains a remarkable dereliction of duty however for a CEO not to poke a bit hard into a matter that affected the lives of so many. It also shows a remarkable lack of common sense on her part, as well as her advisers, that she didn't wonder how it was so many previously upright citizens had become fraudsters immediately on commencing work with the Post Office, and how the PO had managed to corner the market in criminals of this type.
Cyclefree's remark about the Law Commission's ruling sheds some light here. If it is accepted that computer evidence trumps all other types, it is hard to see how common sense might get a look in.
I wonder how the LC came to make this ruling, and whether it still stands by it?
- Paula Vennells was appointed CEO in 2012. The then Secretary of State for Business was Vince Cable. - She will appear before the inquiry.
The current session is to deal with the lawyers. This is actually very important because three very significant parts of this scandal relate to:-
(1) The failures of the in-house investigators and lawyers, both in investigating the supposed "frauds", bringing the prosecutions, in relation to disclosure, their understanding and use of expert evidence and their behaviour during the appeals. The role of the Law Commission also needs looking at because it came up with the decision (a catastrophically stupid one) that computer evidence should be automatically accepted as accurate unless proved otherwise. This effectively reverses the burden of proof and makes it very hard, if not impossible for a defendant in a trial on charges like these.
(2) The behaviour of judges and others in the criminal justice system. The role of David Neuberger, former Master of the Rolls and a Supreme Court judge needs some explaining, for instance.
(3) The behaviour of the lawyers, both internal and external, in relation to the compensation schemes and the inquiry.
There is much to inquire into and, IMO, to criticise. My profession has not come out of this well and the findings will have important consequences for in-house investigators.
The legal world's dirty little secret is that the behaviour of lawyers and judges in previous scandals and miscarriages of justice (from at least the Birmingham 6 case onwards but also including Operation Countryman re police corruption even earlier) has not always been what it should be, to put it mildly. This has tended to be overlooked because there have been bigger villains - the police, forensic experts etc., - but it is about time that the lawyers faced their moment of truth and I hope that this inquiry will enable that.
I should add that I know and have worked with at least one of the experts being called to give evidence in this latest phase. Nice, able people. But even nice able people can make stupid mistakes and bad errors of judgment, especially when put in a position when everyone else is doing this, this is what the client wants and there is no/no effective process enabling them to behave well.
Thanks, Cyclefree. I am learning more about this from you than from our heroic Press, and the media coverage. It is in my view the worst public scandal of my lifetime and I sense that the establishment is deliberately dragging its feet because it knows that any just settlement will be very, very expensive. It would also likely result in the imprisonment of many of those culpable. Never mind. As long as people are asking questions,there is hope.
Cable must answer questions, of course, but I don't suppose he was the one who trawled for suitable candidates. Prima facie, Vennells' qualifications at the time looked thin. Do you think we will find out how the selection process worked and what made her appear the strongest candidate?
Vennells’s background was marketing - originally a Unilever trainee - and she was recruited at a time when the PO was entering new competitive markets like banking and savings and broadband and foreign currency and they needed a CEO to front up all the marketing. She threw herself into all that and I suspect that the back office stuff concerning fraud and legal cases was a long way from her knowledge zone and she probably wasn’t much interested in it, expecting others to solve such problems for her. Not an excuse, of course, since the buck must go to the top, but I would expect her culpability to be lack of attention, interest and concern.
In which case her inprisonment should be a massive wake-up call to other CEOs, about the responsibilities they take on in that position. You take the money, you also take the responsibility.
RAAC was widely used in Europe and Japan too. How are they dealing with it?
Keegan said in the house yesterday that the UK were leading Europe and elsewhere in addressing the issue
Well we are certainly leading Europe in terms of closing down thousands of buildings with a current failure rate per year that is almost zero with a theoretical increase expected over time.
Are we leading Europe in terms of repairing and replacing said buildings? Or in terms of evaluating the risk in a sensible manner?
The latest from Putin: "The Western masters placed an ethnic Jew, a person with Jewish roots, at the head of Ukraine and this is how, in my opinion, they cover up the anti-human essence that is the foundation of the modern Ukrainian state."
The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".
All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.
See DTD683
I'm suggesting we need more.
Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.
Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?
"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?
- Paula Vennells was appointed CEO in 2012. The then Secretary of State for Business was Vince Cable. - She will appear before the inquiry.
The current session is to deal with the lawyers. This is actually very important because three very significant parts of this scandal relate to:-
(1) The failures of the in-house investigators and lawyers, both in investigating the supposed "frauds", bringing the prosecutions, in relation to disclosure, their understanding and use of expert evidence and their behaviour during the appeals. The role of the Law Commission also needs looking at because it came up with the decision (a catastrophically stupid one) that computer evidence should be automatically accepted as accurate unless proved otherwise. This effectively reverses the burden of proof and makes it very hard, if not impossible for a defendant in a trial on charges like these.
(2) The behaviour of judges and others in the criminal justice system. The role of David Neuberger, former Master of the Rolls and a Supreme Court judge needs some explaining, for instance.
(3) The behaviour of the lawyers, both internal and external, in relation to the compensation schemes and the inquiry.
There is much to inquire into and, IMO, to criticise. My profession has not come out of this well and the findings will have important consequences for in-house investigators.
The legal world's dirty little secret is that the behaviour of lawyers and judges in previous scandals and miscarriages of justice (from at least the Birmingham 6 case onwards but also including Operation Countryman re police corruption even earlier) has not always been what it should be, to put it mildly. This has tended to be overlooked because there have been bigger villains - the police, forensic experts etc., - but it is about time that the lawyers faced their moment of truth and I hope that this inquiry will enable that.
I should add that I know and have worked with at least one of the experts being called to give evidence in this latest phase. Nice, able people. But even nice able people can make stupid mistakes and bad errors of judgment, especially when put in a position when everyone else is doing this, this is what the client wants and there is no/no effective process enabling them to behave well.
I’m on record as being against sentences of imprisonment for nonviolent and non-dangerous offenders, but I’m willing to make an exception for the dozens of people, many of whom were in both my profession and yours, who were involved in this scandal.
It led to a number of suicides and bankruptcies, and no other punishment is really appropriate. Senior managers at the Post Office, at Fujitsu, and potentially at the Business Department, need to see the inside of a cell for this injustice.
White collar crime can be vicious. Eg when you con somebody out of their savings you destroy not just their plans but their whole identity. It's worse than many a physically violent offence imo. I wouldn't in general argue for those doing it to be exempt from jail.
Comments
Its pedantry, I know. Its like when I see my Tesla described as an "automatic". It isn't.
Local election results (complicated by the Lichfield portion of the seat last voting in 2021), suggest it sits around midway between Selby and Uxbridge in difficulty. Which suggests, at the moment, a Labour win, but close.
Save your household some money, by making up extra holidays that your Evri bloke has told you about….
Current car* is the first we've had with stop-start, electric hand brake, auto-hold, auto full beam etc. I love all of it. I never saw the point of electric hand brakes before having one, but it's really weird driving one with a manual hand brake now.
*previous was a 2015 C-Max, so not ancient - was three years old when we got it - but must have been bottom of range as it missed all the toys (Ford are quite tight with toys on base models, I think)
https://www.scouting.org/
As usual for the past few decades, the new Merc S-Class leads the way with the self-driving tech. If you want to know what your average car will be like in a decade’s time, test an S-Class today.
I would have thought that the Truss Event would have crossed a cornucopia of rubicons. If the Rubicon is not already well in the rear-view mirror there must be something that is holding voters back from wanting to drive the stake into the heart of this government. I'd suggest that's they aren't convinced that Starmer knows his garlic from his onions...
Tamworth Tories have already selected Eddie Hughes as their General Election candidate. But his current job is a problem in terms of fighting the by-election... he's MP for Walsall North.
Crick has speculated he may stand down as an MP in Walsall to fight Tamworth. I find that hard to imagine. From his point of view it's quite likely he'd lose. But the party too would hate it as it's yet another tough by-election in Walsall in addition.
The second option would be for someone else to stand but Hughes remains selected as candidate for the General Election. That, too, is pretty absurd - the Tories would be putting someone up to say "I'd like to keep the seat warm for Eddie for a few months".
I suspect Hughes will be prevailed upon to resign as prospective candidate, but it may explain the delay when it would've been obvious for Pincher to apply promptly for the Chiltern Hundreds.
My Conservative vote in '97 was the electoral equivalent of a pity snog; both John Major and the candidate in Cambridge were obviously doomed, but decent enough to not deserve the Full Reluctant Conscript treatment.
I don't feel that this time, and I'm not sensing it either.
Bizarre but true.
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/1408471/thread
https://x.com/le_figaro/status/1699014515445387402
You can track which hub your parcels came from, and if you live between 2 hubs you can get parcels sent out from either of them.
I can get multiple deliveries in a day, not because they came from multiple carriers, but from the same carrier but from different points of origin.
Will we also have a by-election at the same time in Walsall North then? Maybe not, in which case Eddie Hughes's future political career will depend on the Conservatives losing the Tamworth by-election.
"He announced in March 2023 that he would stand down as MP for Walsall North at the next general election.[26] Walsall North is set to be dissolved by the 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies.[27] In June 2023, he was selected as the Conservative Party prospective parliamentary candidate for Tamworth, a safe seat for the Conservatives which elected Chris Pincher in the 2010, 2015, 2017, and 2019 general elections.[28]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Hughes_(British_politician)
My current car has one, and it's brilliant, but I had a loaner recently with the 'new improved version', and I hate it
DSG is a bit tricky to label except when it goes wrong. Then it simply becomes "expensive".
I'm not sure what by brother-in-law's collection of DAF elastobandomatic Volvos would be classified as. Insane, I think.
It needs some maths, as this mainly only affects a particular group of constituencies (Tory v LD ones), but less than 6% and relegated to 'Others' seems odd.
The larger Tamworth bit is up in thirds, but Labour had a very good performance in May, presumably in anticipation of a by-election (seven gains to bring them to eight, while the Tories fell to two - that's flattering to Labour looking at actual votes, but good nonetheless).
Personally, I think it's quite a bit easier than Selby for Labour despite similar majorities on paper in 2019. They've held it fairly recently and have had quite a lot of notice this was coming. Not a total shoo-in, but they'd be disappointed not to get it.
- Paula Vennells was appointed CEO in 2012. The then Secretary of State for Business was Vince Cable.
- She will appear before the inquiry.
The current session is to deal with the lawyers. This is actually very important because three very significant parts of this scandal relate to:-
(1) The failures of the in-house investigators and lawyers, both in investigating the supposed "frauds", bringing the prosecutions, in relation to disclosure, their understanding and use of expert evidence and their behaviour during the appeals. The role of the Law Commission also needs looking at because it came up with the decision (a catastrophically stupid one) that computer evidence should be automatically accepted as accurate unless proved otherwise. This effectively reverses the burden of proof and makes it very hard, if not impossible for a defendant in a trial on charges like these.
(2) The behaviour of judges and others in the criminal justice system. The role of David Neuberger, former Master of the Rolls and a Supreme Court judge needs some explaining, for instance.
(3) The behaviour of the lawyers, both internal and external, in relation to the compensation schemes and the inquiry.
There is much to inquire into and, IMO, to criticise. My profession has not come out of this well and the findings will have important consequences for in-house investigators.
The legal world's dirty little secret is that the behaviour of lawyers and judges in previous scandals and miscarriages of justice (from at least the Birmingham 6 case onwards but also including Operation Countryman re police corruption even earlier) has not always been what it should be, to put it mildly. This has tended to be overlooked because there have been bigger villains - the police, forensic experts etc., - but it is about time that the lawyers faced their moment of truth and I hope that this inquiry will enable that.
I should add that I know and have worked with at least one of the experts being called to give evidence in this latest phase. Nice, able people. But even nice able people can make stupid mistakes and bad errors of judgment, especially when put in a position when everyone else is doing this, this is what the client wants and there is no/no effective process enabling them to behave well.
It is very simple why that is the case. When you run a factory operation you need to ensure the smoothest possible dispatch of products out of the warehouse. That means a regular movement of stock, and to keep the logistics costs as low as possible you want the volume moved to be as high as possible.
My 48 pack of Punk IPA is produced and stacked onto a pallet which goes on a full vehicle down to a massive warehouse. From there volumes can be broken down into smaller orders, and ecommerce picks taken.
If Brewdog were still a small operation then of course you pick and dispatch from there. One project I have live at the moment is ecommerce fulfilment - I literally pick, pack and dispatch customer orders. That is efficient because there are a small and manageable number of orders. But if there were hundreds of orders then the operation would go to a specialist fulfilment house. So if I had an order to go to a nearby town it would then be more efficient for all the products to go to the fulfilment house and then be sent back.
What utter garbage.
Hermes/Evri is exceptionally shit.
DPD is great.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
And as a consumer you do have a choice. If I know a business uses Evri, I'm less likely to order from them as a result.
And of course with a competitive environment, the businesses compete with each other to be efficient/economic/reliable. If Royal Mail is shit, then you can go elsewhere.
Rivals have popped up because they offered a better service or better cost than the Royal Mail, if they didn't, nobody would use them.
Not sure many would say the same for Sunak. You may well be right that the 'core vote' (running at about 28% at the moment) may not even bother to turn out in the way it normally does.
When are those spread firms going to put up some seat numbers?
I prefer it when they provide you with a little packet of salt and you can season your Scouts to taste.
Should a business in Liverpool also send their goods from their factory in Liverpool to the central belt of Scotland, or is more than one depot in the entire UK appropriate?
Businesses in Liverpool can send their goods to central hub depots in Liverpool, which can then go on to Widnes.
Other businesses can send their goods to depots in Warrington, which can then go on to Widnes.
There is no reason why full van loads for Widnes need to be transported from Liverpool to Warrington before being resorted and resent out.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/09/05/upshot/medicare-budget-threat-receded.html
My issue with DPD isn't just that my local contractor is a pillock. It is how DPD work - not an issue for you if you have no issues.
DPD repeatedly try to deliver my stuff in the wrong village. The app which their contractors use has incorrect GPS information - they have shown me. So you try and fix this with DPD. Finding anyone in the UK who isn't on the end of a premium phone line is hard. When you manage it they say "use our app".
So I download their app and take pictures of my house (which is prominent in our village on a main road, so hardly hidden away) and place a pin on the map. A load of old faff. So that their guy will know where you are. Does it make a difference? No!
You say that as a consumer I can go elsewhere? How - I place an order and the shipper books whichever courier firm is contracted. I do not choose, they do.
All performances have been suspended at The Orchard Theatre in Dartford due to concerns over RAAC.
@steve_hawkes
This is going to be the like the Horsemeat scandal of 2012/2013.. we'll end up finding RAAC in hospitals, barracks, museums..
Rivals have popped up because they're cheaper for the sender, and it's the sender who chooses the service, while the receiver suffers the consequences if they choose Hermes/Evri.
So your business in Liverpool, when you say it is transporting its goods to Widnes, is it doing so itself? That might make sense if so. Otherwise, no. You have a logistics partner and they quote a price to pick up at A and deliver to B. You don't get to tell them which route to drive.
That isn't to say that last mile contractors with Evri are good everywhere! Its a lottery. But Evri are less hassle than DHL when it comes to ecommerce shipping. Which sounds like it must be wrong. But in my experience it is true.
Cable must answer questions, of course, but I don't suppose he was the one who trawled for suitable candidates. Prima facie, Vennells' qualifications at the time looked thin. Do you think we will find out how the selection process worked and what made her appear the strongest candidate?
The point is there's more than 1 hub available - and for good reason, not bad reasons.
Even without looking at other logistics firms, Amazon alone have nearly a dozen hubs in the North West and the spokes they will distribute to from them overlap, for good reason.
OTOH - among all Conservative voters Sunak has a rati;ng of +7 while Starmer has a rating of +46 among Labour voters.
Among Conservative LEAVE voters, Sunak has a net +1 rating while among Conservative REMAIN voters, a group barely 40% of the Conservative LEAVE vote, Sunak has a +30 rating.
Sunak plays very well to a minority group within the Conservatives - Statmer is only -15 among Conservative REMAIN voters while -41 among LEAVE voters.
It seems REMAIN supporters just like people more or dislike them less or it's just an unweighted sub sample.
That might happen, eventually. In theory. But a shiny sixpence says it doesn't happen very often.
So distributors choose couriers on the basis of who is cheapest for them, irrespective of how they perform.
Textbook economic theory might well say that competition drives quality up and cost down. But if lived experience of courier services generally contradicts that, then we have to think about why theory isn't working. It's probably that a necessary but of feedback is broken.
For couriers, it's that the "I'll take my custom elsewhere" bit is too feeble to be useful. For infrastructure-heavy industries, it's that the nemesis (everything breaks) happens years or decades after the hubris (we can skimp on capital spend and take more cash now as profits).
We’re sorry to announce that it has become necessary to suspend performances at The Orchard Theatre, Dartford with immediate effect.
When The Orchard Theatre was built in the early 1980s, reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) was considered a cheap and lightweight alternative to traditional concrete and the theatre was one of thousands of public buildings to use it during construction.
And because it's the 1980's it's all Thatcher's fault (I'm joking it's one of those things)..
Imo it’s also nonsense to say the consumer has choice because they can order from another retailer. There are many factors involved in choosing an online retailer, delivery is just one of them.
Choice would be allowing you to pick your delivery company at checkout. A few online retailers do this.
But as Blanche says it is one area where a single delivery company would bring many more benefits than drawbacks.
Purely hypothetically, of course.
I know no-one wants to hear this, but we are going to have to use some of these buildings in the time period between now and when we can get them all fixed.
From what I saw of them just recently in Germany, there, the Hermes employment and service model is completely different….
The RAAC thing reminds me of the value of cutting away red tape and making it easier to rebuild buildings to better standards rather than maintaining obsolete buildings built to the standards of yesteryear.
Does that mean you get off lessons?
See DTD683
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics/uk-next-general-election/year-of-next-uk-general-election-betting-1.167249197
https://x.com/k_sonin/status/1699089739356266749
Starmer leads Sunak by 11%, his largest lead in these seats since Sunak became PM.
At this moment, which of the following do Red Wall voters think would be the better PM for the UK? (3 September)
Starmer 43% (+1)
Sunak 32% (-1)
Changes +/- 27 August
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/05/gillian-keegan-tells-teachers-to-get-off-backsides-and-answer-raac-survey
It led to a number of suicides and bankruptcies, and no other punishment is really appropriate. Senior managers at the Post Office, at Fujitsu, and potentially at the Business Department, need to see the inside of a cell for this injustice.
Less red tape on planning and it'd be easier to replace buildings using RAAC with newer buildings built to better standards that don't.
Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?
If the UK is leading, then you might consider whether perhaps it's got a bigger mess to deal with, and allowed to accumulate ...
It remains a remarkable dereliction of duty however for a CEO not to poke a bit hard into a matter that affected the lives of so many. It also shows a remarkable lack of common sense on her part, as well as her advisers, that she didn't wonder how it was so many previously upright citizens had become fraudsters immediately on commencing work with the Post Office, and how the PO had managed to corner the market in criminals of this type.
Cyclefree's remark about the Law Commission's ruling sheds some light here. If it is accepted that computer evidence trumps all other types, it is hard to see how common sense might get a look in.
I wonder how the LC came to make this ruling, and whether it still stands by it?
Are we leading Europe in terms of repairing and replacing said buildings? Or in terms of evaluating the risk in a sensible manner?
Let's grow some balls people. We lived through Covid. We can live through a few collapsing ceilings here and there.