Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Should the Liz Truss Honours list be blocked? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,889
edited October 2023 in General
Should the Liz Truss Honours list be blocked? – politicalbetting.com

Liz Truss – one of the most disastrous Tory Prime Ministers – will today lecture us on how it was all *our* fault she crashed the economy. At the same time, our Inaction Man Tory Prime Minister, is about to approve peerages for Liz Truss’s supporters. https://t.co/PfKNcUBhHr

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    MJWMJW Posts: 1,574
    "Surely Truss has the self awareness to realise how ridiculous this looks."

    This is Liz Truss we're talking about, right? Of course she doesn't. She's about to give a speech saying how she was right and everyone else was wrong. Thankfully, she'll be an eternal symbol of the ridiculousness and destructiveness of the post-Brexit Tory Party.
  • Options
    Liz Truss and self awareness - not words that usually appear together.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,118
    "Surely Truss has the self awareness to realise how ridiculous this looks."

    QTWTAIN
  • Options
    Somewhat OT, but it seems my local council (Derbyshire) is on the point of going bust. Further reading suggests that this has been precipitated, at least in part, a failed project to build a waste incinerator.

    From my brief reading up, what seems to have happened is:
    Derbyshire and Derby City Councils teamed up to build a new incinerator. They dished out some sort of PFI type contract to a private sector consortium to build it.
    The incinerator is built, but repeatedly fails commissioning tests.
    Eventually the councils decide to pull the plug on the basis that the plant is clearly a turkey. This is after dishing out various management and maintenance contracts worth millions to look after the closed plant.
    Somehow the councils find themselves sharing the liability for a £100millon payment to the an outfit behind the building of the incinerator. Derbyshire's £57million share of this appears to be a large part of what is putting them very in the red this year.

    Can anyone explain:
    a) How did the councils manage to end up paying out to not use a facility which they paid to have built which doesn't work, and seems to have little prospect of ever working?
    b) How on earth this isn't a massive political scandal, given that at best it's spectacular incompetence and at worst it smells more like straight up corruption. To manage to end up in a mess like this must have taken some gritty determination to pick all the wrong choices at every point.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Russell Brand on Rolf Harris, and not being hypnotised by far off celebrity types

    https://youtu.be/8-0Rb0zweS8?si=vHcRGRAyob6JXDER
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,078
    edited September 2023
    All PMs are entitled to resignation honours lists, even unelected ones like Truss and Brown (technically a 'dissolution honours list' in his case), so it would break precedent to block her list.

    Though given Starmer's plans to reform the upper house, those she has sent to the Lords may not be there too long anyway
  • Options
    I don't think it looks remotely ridiculous - 'banning' a consitutional norm is what would look ridiculous.
  • Options
    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,859
    viewcode said:

    "Surely Truss has the self awareness to realise how ridiculous this looks."

    QTWTAIN

    My immediate thought also.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,432
    edited September 2023
    viewcode said:

    "Surely Truss has the self awareness to realise how ridiculous this looks."

    QTWTAIN

    Even if it's yes, the trade-off is one day's derision vs the chance to have allies and friends in the Lords for decades (if not reformed, as HYUFD notes). A fear of a few bad headlines for 24 hours is not a characteristic of politicians, even useless ones.

    Also, I don't think Sunak should really tear up the tradition just because he doesn't like the specific case - a bad precedent. If he abolished the tradition (which I believe Blair and Brown didn't avail themselves of anyway) without reference to a specific list, that would be fine, but not "Euu, I don't like you so you can't have it".
  • Options

    I don't think it looks remotely ridiculous - 'banning' a consitutional norm is what would look ridiculous.

    Nobody at the Dog & Duck is going to say, "bloody Tories, trampling on a 'constitutional norm' that has been around since Pitt the Younger or something... how ridiculous".

    Whereas they might well have a dim view on a PM, who was objectively a failure and who they might well think is the cause of their mortgage going up quite a bit, giving gongs, baubles, and seats in the Lords to her cronies.
  • Options

    viewcode said:

    "Surely Truss has the self awareness to realise how ridiculous this looks."

    QTWTAIN

    Even if it's yes, the trade-off is one day's derision vs the chance to have allies and friends in the Lords for decades (if not reformed, as HYUFD notes). A fear of a few bad headlines for 24 hours is not a characteristic of politicians, even useless ones.
    I am not sure how much sleep you feel Truss should be losing over the 'derision' she's apparently getting, no offence to PB and whoever that MP on Twitter is.
  • Options
    I see the BBC is now broadcasting a speech by Liz Truss in which she's banging on about tax cuts. Who at the BBC actually thinks she has anything useful to say about that topic? Getting Russell Brand's take would be more instructive.
  • Options
    theProle said:

    Somewhat OT, but it seems my local council (Derbyshire) is on the point of going bust. Further reading suggests that this has been precipitated, at least in part, a failed project to build a waste incinerator.

    From my brief reading up, what seems to have happened is:
    Derbyshire and Derby City Councils teamed up to build a new incinerator. They dished out some sort of PFI type contract to a private sector consortium to build it.
    The incinerator is built, but repeatedly fails commissioning tests.
    Eventually the councils decide to pull the plug on the basis that the plant is clearly a turkey. This is after dishing out various management and maintenance contracts worth millions to look after the closed plant.
    Somehow the councils find themselves sharing the liability for a £100millon payment to the an outfit behind the building of the incinerator. Derbyshire's £57million share of this appears to be a large part of what is putting them very in the red this year.

    Can anyone explain:
    a) How did the councils manage to end up paying out to not use a facility which they paid to have built which doesn't work, and seems to have little prospect of ever working?
    b) How on earth this isn't a massive political scandal, given that at best it's spectacular incompetence and at worst it smells more like straight up corruption. To manage to end up in a mess like this must have taken some gritty determination to pick all the wrong choices at every point.

    A relative was offered a job on building the incinerator, which was at Sinfin, in my family's part of the world. He took a look at the project and ran away as fast as he could.

    The project was an absolute disaster from start to finish, and that was apparently clear from the planning stages.

    https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/new-papers-reveal-many-reasons-5310814
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,808
    edited September 2023

    I don't think it looks remotely ridiculous - 'banning' a consitutional norm is what would look ridiculous.

    Truss should be allowed, as it is the constitutional norm as you say - but she should also have the good grace to either refuse or simply appoint literally only a couple of people.
    These things are always written assuming people will have wherewithal, restraint, a sense of what is appropriate and what isn't.
    The problem is that shame left the building a while back. See also Trump, top NHS appointments, Cressida Dick, Sharon Shoesmith and so on.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,325

    viewcode said:

    "Surely Truss has the self awareness to realise how ridiculous this looks."

    QTWTAIN

    Even if it's yes, the trade-off is one day's derision vs the chance to have allies and friends in the Lords for decades (if not reformed, as HYUFD notes). A fear of a few bad headlines for 24 hours is not a characteristic of politicians, even useless ones.
    I am not sure how much sleep you feel Truss should be losing over the 'derision' she's apparently getting, no offence to PB and whoever that MP on Twitter is.
    Yes I don't think Truss is likely to lose any sleep, or indeed even notice the derision to be honest. And as Nick says, changing a contitutional norm just because someone is a plonker probably isn't very sensible.

    Truss's lack of room reading skills is really quite remarkable though. Speaking to people who knew her in her youth this is by no means a new thing. She was always somewhat in her own world. I think one key difference between her and Johnson is that Johnson knew what he was saying was bullshit and/or would wind up everyone but said it anyway, whereas Truss really didn't know.
  • Options

    viewcode said:

    "Surely Truss has the self awareness to realise how ridiculous this looks."

    QTWTAIN

    Even if it's yes, the trade-off is one day's derision vs the chance to have allies and friends in the Lords for decades (if not reformed, as HYUFD notes). A fear of a few bad headlines for 24 hours is not a characteristic of politicians, even useless ones.

    Also, I don't think Sunak should really tear up the tradition just because he doesn't like the specific case - a bad precedent. If he abolished the tradition (which I believe Blair and Brown didn't avail themselves of anyway) without reference to a specific list, that would be fine, but not "Euu, I don't like you so you can't have it".
    Brown essentially did as he had a dissolution honours list at the time of the 2010 election (and Callaghan and Heath also took the approach that they'd basically had their list - although Major had one).

    Blair effectively couldn't do it - if it looks bad for Truss now, it would've looked worse for a man who'd only recently been interviewed by the Police regarding Cash-for-Honours.

    On tearing up tradition, this isn't the Trooping of the Colour. It's handing out seats for life in the legislature, amongst other baubles, and should have been torn up years ago.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,325

    I see the BBC is now broadcasting a speech by Liz Truss in which she's banging on about tax cuts. Who at the BBC actually thinks she has anything useful to say about that topic? Getting Russell Brand's take would be more instructive.

    It's also not the PM or ex-PM's primary job either. It's a CoE thing. When you got talking heads on TV about the Thatcher, Major or Blair years it was always Howe, Lawson, Lamont, Brown and Darling that you heard from. Not the PMs. So if we want to hear someone defending the chaos of last year it should surely be Kwarteng.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,557
    edited September 2023
    Pulpstar said:

    I don't think it looks remotely ridiculous - 'banning' a consitutional norm is what would look ridiculous.

    Truss should be allowed, as it is the constitutional norm as you say - but she should also have the good grace to either refuse or simply appoint literally only a couple of people.
    These things are always written assuming people will have wherewithal, restraint, a sense of what is appropriate and what isn't.
    The problem is that shame left the building a while back.
    There's a particular type of PBer (and one assumes the breed is not confined to here) who descend into a peculiar foam-flecked outrage that Liz Truss should not only continue to believe in her discredited (they weren't) low tax ways, continue to make that political argument, and continue to use the means at her disposal to influence Britain's political future. Long may she exist to work them into a frenzy - it may well be the only excercise the poor loves get.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301
    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    "Surely Truss has the self awareness to realise how ridiculous this looks."

    QTWTAIN

    Even if it's yes, the trade-off is one day's derision vs the chance to have allies and friends in the Lords for decades (if not reformed, as HYUFD notes). A fear of a few bad headlines for 24 hours is not a characteristic of politicians, even useless ones.
    I am not sure how much sleep you feel Truss should be losing over the 'derision' she's apparently getting, no offence to PB and whoever that MP on Twitter is.
    Yes I don't think Truss is likely to lose any sleep, or indeed even notice the derision to be honest. And as Nick says, changing a contitutional norm just because someone is a plonker probably isn't very sensible...
    The 'constitutional norm' is utterly discredited.
    The only reason Sunak doesn't abolish it is that he wants his own go when the time comes.

    Get rid.

  • Options
    They should get the honours but be obliged to put the words "Liz Truss" in them, for instance "Dame Priti Patel, Liz Truss Lady of Marks Tey"
  • Options
    Rishi must surely wish that Liz would just go away. Her continuing presence simply reminds the moderately minded that the Tory Party is now a hand grenade, or the zealots that Rishi isn't Liz so why vote for him. If the Tory party is to die (and I don't fully rule that out as a possibility) then Liz Truss will be remembered as it's chief executioner.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    "Surely Truss has the self awareness to realise how ridiculous this looks."

    QTWTAIN

    Even if it's yes, the trade-off is one day's derision vs the chance to have allies and friends in the Lords for decades (if not reformed, as HYUFD notes). A fear of a few bad headlines for 24 hours is not a characteristic of politicians, even useless ones.
    I am not sure how much sleep you feel Truss should be losing over the 'derision' she's apparently getting, no offence to PB and whoever that MP on Twitter is.
    Yes I don't think Truss is likely to lose any sleep, or indeed even notice the derision to be honest. And as Nick says, changing a contitutional norm just because someone is a plonker probably isn't very sensible...
    The 'constitutional norm' is utterly discredited.
    The only reason Sunak doesn't abolish it is that he wants his own go when the time comes.

    Get rid.

    I'm not sure Sunak will do a resignation honours list as, assuming he goes at the General Election, he'll have had the dissolution honours list. Brown, Callaghan and Heath didn't (although Major did).
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301
    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    "Surely Truss has the self awareness to realise how ridiculous this looks."

    QTWTAIN

    Even if it's yes, the trade-off is one day's derision vs the chance to have allies and friends in the Lords for decades (if not reformed, as HYUFD notes). A fear of a few bad headlines for 24 hours is not a characteristic of politicians, even useless ones.
    I am not sure how much sleep you feel Truss should be losing over the 'derision' she's apparently getting, no offence to PB and whoever that MP on Twitter is.
    Yes I don't think Truss is likely to lose any sleep, or indeed even notice the derision to be honest. And as Nick says, changing a contitutional norm just because someone is a plonker probably isn't very sensible.

    Truss's lack of room reading skills is really quite remarkable though...
    The Koreans attach great importance to that.
    They even have a word for the ability - 눈치


  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,557
    edited September 2023
    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    "Surely Truss has the self awareness to realise how ridiculous this looks."

    QTWTAIN

    Even if it's yes, the trade-off is one day's derision vs the chance to have allies and friends in the Lords for decades (if not reformed, as HYUFD notes). A fear of a few bad headlines for 24 hours is not a characteristic of politicians, even useless ones.
    I am not sure how much sleep you feel Truss should be losing over the 'derision' she's apparently getting, no offence to PB and whoever that MP on Twitter is.
    Yes I don't think Truss is likely to lose any sleep, or indeed even notice the derision to be honest. And as Nick says, changing a contitutional norm just because someone is a plonker probably isn't very sensible.

    Truss's lack of room reading skills is really quite remarkable though. Speaking to people who knew her in her youth this is by no means a new thing. She was always somewhat in her own world. I think one key difference between her and Johnson is that Johnson knew what he was saying was bullshit and/or would wind up everyone but said it anyway, whereas Truss really didn't know.
    To me, Liz Truss's lack of being a Machiavelline piece of excrement is one of the things I find most admirable about her. She said the same thing to Joe Biden, Prince Charles, over the dispatch box, at the leadership hustings, and in private conversations with the likes of our own Barty Bobbins. She genuinely wanted the UK to be a highly productive, low tax economy, producing more of its own food, energy and manufactured goods.

    I have no idea whether you live and pay taxes in the UK - the fact we're on PB and discuss politics and politicians all the time perhaps gives us the feeling that we are arch political insiders as opposed to (for example) physics teachers living in Essex, but non-lying politicians from the perspective of a tax-payer are something to be welcomed rather than deplored; it's some bizarre stockholm syndrome shite that any of us do the opposite.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,126
    edited September 2023
    Liz Truss's lack of being a Machiavelline piece of excrement is one of the things I find most admirable about her.

    This is the lady who fired her Chancellor for promoting her own economic policies?
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 21,707

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    I only ever hear about the purported ‘advantages’ of stupid bits of paper from the old farts on PB.

    Last few times I flew, I just had my QR code on my Wallet app on my watch. No stupid bits of paper to fart about with. Straight through. Worked like a dream. Same with trains.

    Go paperless. It’s liberating.
  • Options

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    I only ever hear about the purported ‘advantages’ of stupid bits of paper from the old farts on PB.

    Last few times I flew, I just had my QR code on my Wallet app on my watch. No stupid bits of paper to fart about with. Straight through. Worked like a dream. Same with trains.

    Go paperless. It’s liberating.
    How wonderfully with-it and non-gammony of you.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574
    So Truss thinks the public wanted her policies ! Someone needs to stage an intervention as she clearly needs help !
  • Options
    nico679 said:

    So Truss thinks the public wanted her policies ! Someone needs to stage an intervention as she clearly needs help !

    Did the public want Sunak's national insurance hike ? Did you want Sunak's national insurance hike ? Or perhaps you're part of Britain's burgeoning pensioner leisure class who are not troubled by such trivialities.
  • Options
    theProle said:

    Somewhat OT, but it seems my local council (Derbyshire) is on the point of going bust. Further reading suggests that this has been precipitated, at least in part, a failed project to build a waste incinerator.

    From my brief reading up, what seems to have happened is:
    Derbyshire and Derby City Councils teamed up to build a new incinerator. They dished out some sort of PFI type contract to a private sector consortium to build it.
    The incinerator is built, but repeatedly fails commissioning tests.
    Eventually the councils decide to pull the plug on the basis that the plant is clearly a turkey. This is after dishing out various management and maintenance contracts worth millions to look after the closed plant.
    Somehow the councils find themselves sharing the liability for a £100millon payment to the an outfit behind the building of the incinerator. Derbyshire's £57million share of this appears to be a large part of what is putting them very in the red this year.

    Can anyone explain:
    a) How did the councils manage to end up paying out to not use a facility which they paid to have built which doesn't work, and seems to have little prospect of ever working?
    b) How on earth this isn't a massive political scandal, given that at best it's spectacular incompetence and at worst it smells more like straight up corruption. To manage to end up in a mess like this must have taken some gritty determination to pick all the wrong choices at every point.

    The spivocracy continues to entertain. They sign a contract to build a new incinerator. The thing is built but cannot be commissioned as has been constructed out of chocolate. Why on earth does the contract not have basic performance clauses in it?

    Here in the private sector contracts are usually pretty tight - certainly are when I am involved. If there is non-conformance or worse, what happens is clearly spelled out. For the protection of all parties.

    And yet in PFI it seems that we pay £stupid for cheaply built crap, with no ability to claw back if the building is unusable or the PPE is unsuitable. The spivs get their money, we get the bill. Why?
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574

    nico679 said:

    So Truss thinks the public wanted her policies ! Someone needs to stage an intervention as she clearly needs help !

    Did the public want Sunak's national insurance hike ? Did you want Sunak's national insurance hike ? Or perhaps you're part of Britain's burgeoning pensioner leisure class who are not troubled by such trivialities.
    Truss wanted capitalism on steroids. No thanks !

  • Options

    theProle said:

    Somewhat OT, but it seems my local council (Derbyshire) is on the point of going bust. Further reading suggests that this has been precipitated, at least in part, a failed project to build a waste incinerator.

    From my brief reading up, what seems to have happened is:
    Derbyshire and Derby City Councils teamed up to build a new incinerator. They dished out some sort of PFI type contract to a private sector consortium to build it.
    The incinerator is built, but repeatedly fails commissioning tests.
    Eventually the councils decide to pull the plug on the basis that the plant is clearly a turkey. This is after dishing out various management and maintenance contracts worth millions to look after the closed plant.
    Somehow the councils find themselves sharing the liability for a £100millon payment to the an outfit behind the building of the incinerator. Derbyshire's £57million share of this appears to be a large part of what is putting them very in the red this year.

    Can anyone explain:
    a) How did the councils manage to end up paying out to not use a facility which they paid to have built which doesn't work, and seems to have little prospect of ever working?
    b) How on earth this isn't a massive political scandal, given that at best it's spectacular incompetence and at worst it smells more like straight up corruption. To manage to end up in a mess like this must have taken some gritty determination to pick all the wrong choices at every point.

    The spivocracy continues to entertain. They sign a contract to build a new incinerator. The thing is built but cannot be commissioned as has been constructed out of chocolate. Why on earth does the contract not have basic performance clauses in it?

    Here in the private sector contracts are usually pretty tight - certainly are when I am involved. If there is non-conformance or worse, what happens is clearly spelled out. For the protection of all parties.

    And yet in PFI it seems that we pay £stupid for cheaply built crap, with no ability to claw back if the building is unusable or the PPE is unsuitable. The spivs get their money, we get the bill. Why?
    From memory, I believe a big issue with the incinerator was that it was far too large for the proposed site. It really needed much more space in order to work correctly, and that space was not available. That led to them proposing changes/compromises to what was a marginal design in order to fit in the space.

    The siting of the incinerator was very much up to the council.
  • Options
    Farooq said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I don't think it looks remotely ridiculous - 'banning' a consitutional norm is what would look ridiculous.

    Truss should be allowed, as it is the constitutional norm as you say - but she should also have the good grace to either refuse or simply appoint literally only a couple of people.
    These things are always written assuming people will have wherewithal, restraint, a sense of what is appropriate and what isn't.
    The problem is that shame left the building a while back.
    There's a particular type of PBer (and one assumes the breed is not confined to here) who descend into a peculiar foam-flecked outrage that Liz Truss should not only continue to believe in her discredited (they weren't) low tax ways, continue to make that political argument, and continue to use the means at her disposal to influence Britain's political future. Long may she exist to work them into a frenzy - it may well be the only excercise the poor loves get.
    You are Teruo Nakamura and I claim my 915 yen
    Battling the piercing rhetorical darts of Big G and Stark Raving is not *exactly* to be compared to living in a cave with a dagger in ones mouth socking it to the victorious alles, even in the PB sense.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,013
    edited September 2023

    theProle said:

    Somewhat OT, but it seems my local council (Derbyshire) is on the point of going bust. Further reading suggests that this has been precipitated, at least in part, a failed project to build a waste incinerator.

    From my brief reading up, what seems to have happened is:
    Derbyshire and Derby City Councils teamed up to build a new incinerator. They dished out some sort of PFI type contract to a private sector consortium to build it.
    The incinerator is built, but repeatedly fails commissioning tests.
    Eventually the councils decide to pull the plug on the basis that the plant is clearly a turkey. This is after dishing out various management and maintenance contracts worth millions to look after the closed plant.
    Somehow the councils find themselves sharing the liability for a £100millon payment to the an outfit behind the building of the incinerator. Derbyshire's £57million share of this appears to be a large part of what is putting them very in the red this year.

    Can anyone explain:
    a) How did the councils manage to end up paying out to not use a facility which they paid to have built which doesn't work, and seems to have little prospect of ever working?
    b) How on earth this isn't a massive political scandal, given that at best it's spectacular incompetence and at worst it smells more like straight up corruption. To manage to end up in a mess like this must have taken some gritty determination to pick all the wrong choices at every point.

    The spivocracy continues to entertain. They sign a contract to build a new incinerator. The thing is built but cannot be commissioned as has been constructed out of chocolate. Why on earth does the contract not have basic performance clauses in it?

    Here in the private sector contracts are usually pretty tight - certainly are when I am involved. If there is non-conformance or worse, what happens is clearly spelled out. For the protection of all parties.

    And yet in PFI it seems that we pay £stupid for cheaply built crap, with no ability to claw back if the building is unusable or the PPE is unsuitable. The spivs get their money, we get the bill. Why?
    Public sector contracts for civil engineering projects need to be as balls-graspingly tight as they are for private sector ones.

    Bring in contracts teams who worked on North Sea oil platforms. These platforms have to withstand a 100 year wave. And if they go 10% over budget/fail commissioning, there is hell to pay.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 29,878

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Not surprised. Thanks for the information.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669
    For all those professing there is actually a Scopttish Labour Party:
    There is no Scottish Labour.

  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,278
    edited September 2023

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    I only ever hear about the purported ‘advantages’ of stupid bits of paper from the old farts on PB.

    Last few times I flew, I just had my QR code on my Wallet app on my watch. No stupid bits of paper to fart about with. Straight through. Worked like a dream. Same with trains.

    Go paperless. It’s liberating.
    I've never had a piece of paper run out of battery or need a password. And it rarely needs glasses to operate, if you know what the right piece of paper is.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669
    Farooq said:

    theProle said:

    Somewhat OT, but it seems my local council (Derbyshire) is on the point of going bust. Further reading suggests that this has been precipitated, at least in part, a failed project to build a waste incinerator.

    From my brief reading up, what seems to have happened is:
    Derbyshire and Derby City Councils teamed up to build a new incinerator. They dished out some sort of PFI type contract to a private sector consortium to build it.
    The incinerator is built, but repeatedly fails commissioning tests.
    Eventually the councils decide to pull the plug on the basis that the plant is clearly a turkey. This is after dishing out various management and maintenance contracts worth millions to look after the closed plant.
    Somehow the councils find themselves sharing the liability for a £100millon payment to the an outfit behind the building of the incinerator. Derbyshire's £57million share of this appears to be a large part of what is putting them very in the red this year.

    Can anyone explain:
    a) How did the councils manage to end up paying out to not use a facility which they paid to have built which doesn't work, and seems to have little prospect of ever working?
    b) How on earth this isn't a massive political scandal, given that at best it's spectacular incompetence and at worst it smells more like straight up corruption. To manage to end up in a mess like this must have taken some gritty determination to pick all the wrong choices at every point.

    The spivocracy continues to entertain. They sign a contract to build a new incinerator. The thing is built but cannot be commissioned as has been constructed out of chocolate. Why on earth does the contract not have basic performance clauses in it?

    Here in the private sector contracts are usually pretty tight - certainly are when I am involved. If there is non-conformance or worse, what happens is clearly spelled out. For the protection of all parties.

    And yet in PFI it seems that we pay £stupid for cheaply built crap, with no ability to claw back if the building is unusable or the PPE is unsuitable. The spivs get their money, we get the bill. Why?
    Partly because we pay councillors £pittance. What kind of talent do you think you can recruit when you pay peanuts?
    They have departments full of qualified people who are supposed to do the contracting , give guidance etc
  • Options
    Wih regards to Truss, there is a baffling lack of self-awareness from PB Tories. Truss legally was PM and thus fits the convention of allowing her resignation hnours to be awarded.

    Legally.

    Politically? Is this really the battle you want to fight? Reminding the country how utterly chaotic your party is? How it trashed the economy and cost voters a stack of money?

    Truss is *offered* the ability to have a resignation honours list. Just as with the honour bestowed on former PMs with regards to a senior title and seat in the Lords, it is something they can choose not to do.

    Truss needs to be told by party managers not to take the proverbial if she later wants a gong for herself. That some of you don't get this just demonstrates the political mess you are in.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,261
    Farooq said:

    "Resignation honours are just about justifiable for PMs who have served a reasonable time at Number 10..."

    No, not really

    Just remove the political component from the Honours system.

    Replace with an independent committee, have nominations from the public and scrap the HoL.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,013
    Cookie said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    I only ever hear about the purported ‘advantages’ of stupid bits of paper from the old farts on PB.

    Last few times I flew, I just had my QR code on my Wallet app on my watch. No stupid bits of paper to fart about with. Straight through. Worked like a dream. Same with trains.

    Go paperless. It’s liberating.
    I've never had a piece of paper run out of battery or need a password.
    Nor has anyone for the past several thousand years....
  • Options
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    So Truss thinks the public wanted her policies ! Someone needs to stage an intervention as she clearly needs help !

    Did the public want Sunak's national insurance hike ? Did you want Sunak's national insurance hike ? Or perhaps you're part of Britain's burgeoning pensioner leisure class who are not troubled by such trivialities.
    Truss wanted capitalism on steroids. No thanks !

    How much will you be making your (Anticashazina trigger warning ahead) cheque to the Treasury for the extra national insurance payment for, and do you need a stamp?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669
    Cookie said:

    theProle said:

    Somewhat OT, but it seems my local council (Derbyshire) is on the point of going bust. Further reading suggests that this has been precipitated, at least in part, a failed project to build a waste incinerator.

    From my brief reading up, what seems to have happened is:
    Derbyshire and Derby City Councils teamed up to build a new incinerator. They dished out some sort of PFI type contract to a private sector consortium to build it.
    The incinerator is built, but repeatedly fails commissioning tests.
    Eventually the councils decide to pull the plug on the basis that the plant is clearly a turkey. This is after dishing out various management and maintenance contracts worth millions to look after the closed plant.
    Somehow the councils find themselves sharing the liability for a £100millon payment to the an outfit behind the building of the incinerator. Derbyshire's £57million share of this appears to be a large part of what is putting them very in the red this year.

    Can anyone explain:
    a) How did the councils manage to end up paying out to not use a facility which they paid to have built which doesn't work, and seems to have little prospect of ever working?
    b) How on earth this isn't a massive political scandal, given that at best it's spectacular incompetence and at worst it smells more like straight up corruption. To manage to end up in a mess like this must have taken some gritty determination to pick all the wrong choices at every point.

    The spivocracy continues to entertain. They sign a contract to build a new incinerator. The thing is built but cannot be commissioned as has been constructed out of chocolate. Why on earth does the contract not have basic performance clauses in it?

    Here in the private sector contracts are usually pretty tight - certainly are when I am involved. If there is non-conformance or worse, what happens is clearly spelled out. For the protection of all parties.

    And yet in PFI it seems that we pay £stupid for cheaply built crap, with no ability to claw back if the building is unusable or the PPE is unsuitable. The spivs get their money, we get the bill. Why?

    Public procurement is essentially set up to deliver the cheapest option, even if it doesn't work. These systems were set up because we didn't believe public sector procurement was either as cheap as it could be or as honest as it could be. And to be fair, it has succeeded in its aims. What it now doesn't deliver is quality.
    It's quite a challenge for those working in the public sector not to get stuck in this trap, and it's surprising it doesn't happen more often than it does.

    A friend of mine was telling me about public procurement in the Netherlands yesterday. Apparently standard practice is to rule out the cheapest bid. The effect of this is that nobody tries to buy the job - if you can't do it just by being as cheap as possible, you have to be offer something else. You still have to be good value, but have added quality elsewhere.
    It's not perfect of course. And it's considerably more expensive up front. But I find it quite an interesting approach.
    Buy cheap buy twice is always true
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 21,707
    Cookie said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    I only ever hear about the purported ‘advantages’ of stupid bits of paper from the old farts on PB.

    Last few times I flew, I just had my QR code on my Wallet app on my watch. No stupid bits of paper to fart about with. Straight through. Worked like a dream. Same with trains.

    Go paperless. It’s liberating.
    I've never had a piece of paper run out of battery or need a password. And it rarely needs glasses to operate, if you know what the right piece of paper is.
    But you have lost them.

    Apple Wallet doesn't need a password by the way. Have you never used it??

    And the smartwatch is backed up by the phone, so no issue with battery life either even if you are stupid enough to forget to charge one device or the other. You always need a phone/watch for other stuff in any case – so make sure you charge it.

    It really is very liberating, getting stupid, pointless pieces of paper out of your life.

    Do it. You won't go back.
  • Options
    Liz is surely going for the leadership again after Rishi's demise. Nothing else makes any sense.
  • Options

    Wih regards to Truss, there is a baffling lack of self-awareness from PB Tories. Truss legally was PM and thus fits the convention of allowing her resignation hnours to be awarded.

    Legally.

    Politically? Is this really the battle you want to fight? Reminding the country how utterly chaotic your party is? How it trashed the economy and cost voters a stack of money?

    Truss is *offered* the ability to have a resignation honours list. Just as with the honour bestowed on former PMs with regards to a senior title and seat in the Lords, it is something they can choose not to do.

    Truss needs to be told by party managers not to take the proverbial if she later wants a gong for herself. That some of you don't get this just demonstrates the political mess you are in.

    She is an embarrassment, and is responsible for gifting labour the biggest prize of all of crashing the economy

    She is entitled to her deluded opinion of herself, and her policies, and as far as honours are concerned then the recipients will be forever associated with her contribution to the demise of the conservative party
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 21,707
    Andy_JS said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Not surprised. Thanks for the information.
    It's fake news. Use Apple Wallet, you won't look back.

    This is how I imagine the wallets of the PB Old Farts.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,301
    .

    Andy_JS said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Not surprised. Thanks for the information.
    It's fake news. Use Apple Wallet, you won't look back.

    This is how I imagine the wallets of the PB Old Farts.
    Thank you, young flatulence..
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574
    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574
    edited September 2023

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    So Truss thinks the public wanted her policies ! Someone needs to stage an intervention as she clearly needs help !

    Did the public want Sunak's national insurance hike ? Did you want Sunak's national insurance hike ? Or perhaps you're part of Britain's burgeoning pensioner leisure class who are not troubled by such trivialities.
    Truss wanted capitalism on steroids. No thanks !

    How much will you be making your (Anticashazina trigger warning ahead) cheque to the Treasury for the extra national insurance payment for, and do you need a stamp?
    I support higher taxes if it leads to better services. Brits want decent services on the cheap and need to face the reality that you generally get what you pay for .
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,013

    Andy_JS said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Not surprised. Thanks for the information.
    It's fake news. Use Apple Wallet, you won't look back.

    This is how I imagine the wallets of the PB Old Farts.
    It's how we run the country....
  • Options

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Facial recognition is the way forward
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,556

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    So Truss thinks the public wanted her policies ! Someone needs to stage an intervention as she clearly needs help !

    Did the public want Sunak's national insurance hike ? Did you want Sunak's national insurance hike ? Or perhaps you're part of Britain's burgeoning pensioner leisure class who are not troubled by such trivialities.
    Truss wanted capitalism on steroids. No thanks !

    How much will you be making your (Anticashazina trigger warning ahead) cheque to the Treasury for the extra national insurance payment for, and do you need a stamp?
    Some of us are a bit more modern than you in such ways.

    There was however a period a few years ago when HMRC stopped issuing individual bank payment slips securely coded to the transaction in question with their tax demands, well before most people used online banking. I hate to think how much public and Civil Service time the Anabobs of the Treasury wasted as a result.

    HMRC were harassing my elderly father over an £2 payment - well, they sent the kind of letter going on about £100 fines - and I had to pay the bloody thing three times over and spend several pounds' worth of postage stamps before it finally clicked.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,261
    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    The right are clearly idiots. Improving the Brexit deal is under way with the current PM, and will continue with the next one. As it should. Nothing should be left in aspic (US constitution aside...) Moving to an end state of extremely close co-operation with the EU without the pointless electing of MEP's (what was their role again?) is the best form of Brexit.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,013

    Farooq said:

    "Resignation honours are just about justifiable for PMs who have served a reasonable time at Number 10..."

    No, not really

    Just remove the political component from the Honours system.

    Replace with an independent committee, have nominations from the public and scrap the HoL.
    But nobody on that committee can have a gong themselves. And must forego ever having one. Or they will just be looking after their own interests.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,261

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Facial recognition is the way forward
    How does that work for identical twins?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,556

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Facial recognition is the way forward
    Anal surely; vide Ig Nobel winners last week. No problems with beards or makeup.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,010
    Carnyx said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Facial recognition is the way forward
    Anal surely; vide Ig Nobel winners last week. No problems with beards or makeup.
    You obviously move in sheltered circles :wink:
  • Options
    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Yes, I can't see many voters being remotely bothered by 'closer ties with Europe' now. The Leavers had their chance to instil within the public consciousness the notion that the opposite was desirable and good. They failed that task spectacularly.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,013
    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Perhaps more support if it weren't "overturn Brexit" Starmer making the case....?
  • Options
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    So Truss thinks the public wanted her policies ! Someone needs to stage an intervention as she clearly needs help !

    Did the public want Sunak's national insurance hike ? Did you want Sunak's national insurance hike ? Or perhaps you're part of Britain's burgeoning pensioner leisure class who are not troubled by such trivialities.
    Truss wanted capitalism on steroids. No thanks !

    How much will you be making your (Anticashazina trigger warning ahead) cheque to the Treasury for the extra national insurance payment for, and do you need a stamp?
    I support higher taxes if it leads to better services. Brits want decent services on the cheap and need to face the reality that you generally get what you pay for .
    Look at the Derbyshire incinerator fiasco as an example. We pay top money for crapola stuff which isn't fit for purpose. Huge amounts of money gets spivved away leaving us with big bills and ongoing liabilities for stuff which isn't fit for purpose.

    Supposedly we are better than the foreign because unlike them we aren't corrupt. But we are - our police are corrupt, our public procurement process is corrupt, politicians do the bidding of media barons and foreign donors.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,278

    Cookie said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    I only ever hear about the purported ‘advantages’ of stupid bits of paper from the old farts on PB.

    Last few times I flew, I just had my QR code on my Wallet app on my watch. No stupid bits of paper to fart about with. Straight through. Worked like a dream. Same with trains.

    Go paperless. It’s liberating.
    I've never had a piece of paper run out of battery or need a password. And it rarely needs glasses to operate, if you know what the right piece of paper is.
    But you have lost them.

    Apple Wallet doesn't need a password by the way. Have you never used it??

    And the smartwatch is backed up by the phone, so no issue with battery life either even if you are stupid enough to forget to charge one device or the other. You always need a phone/watch for other stuff in any case – so make sure you charge it.

    It really is very liberating, getting stupid, pointless pieces of paper out of your life.

    Do it. You won't go back.
    I have lost pieces of paper, to be fair.

    And no, I've never used Apple Wallet. I don't have an Apple. I don't use a smartphone enough to justify the cost of an Apple - I've got an Android which costs me about £12 per month. So I don't necessarily know whereof I speak.

    But my heart always sinks when I am called upon to use an app rather than the previous technology. It necessitates having my glasses and working out technical details, and I am always quite surprised if it works. I may be tarring everything with the sins of the worst i.e. car parking apps, but there are many bad apps.

    But surely the anxiety and inconvenience of not losing the pieces of paper is no worse than the anxiety and inconvenience of making sure your phone is in full working order (and indeed of making sure you have it with you)? And you're putting all your eggs in one basket. If you're as reliant on your phone/watch as you seem to be, that's an awful lot of life you suddenly lose if you lose it/it breaks/it runs out of battery. So you just replace lots of small anxieties with one big anxiety.

    I do take your point about getting pieces of paper out of your life. But it's also very liberating getting a reliance on a phone out of your life. Try it! Next time you leave your house, do so without your phone.

    The best thing about smartphones, for me, is that it comes with a camera. It's not as good a camera as the one I used to use (solely because of the lack of optical zoom), but it's so very convenient.

  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,556

    Andy_JS said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Not surprised. Thanks for the information.
    It's fake news. Use Apple Wallet, you won't look back.

    This is how I imagine the wallets of the PB Old Farts.
    It's how we run the country....
    My wallet's thinner and smaller than a mobile phone, and it doesn't smash when I drop it!
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,010
    On topic:
    No, it shouldn't. Absent some general rules on eligibility to have a list, she was PM and if she wants to do one then whatever. The whole system seems nuts to me, but if we have it then it shouldn't be restricted based on whether a PM is any good or not. You could introduce some general minimum term or make the number you can nominate proportional to time served - e.g. you get X nominations per completed year as PM, say.

    Mind you, she looks crass for pushing it, I think. And anyone with self-respect would surely refuse one of her resignation honours. But that's a different question to whether it should actually be blocked.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,013
    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    theProle said:

    Somewhat OT, but it seems my local council (Derbyshire) is on the point of going bust. Further reading suggests that this has been precipitated, at least in part, a failed project to build a waste incinerator.

    From my brief reading up, what seems to have happened is:
    Derbyshire and Derby City Councils teamed up to build a new incinerator. They dished out some sort of PFI type contract to a private sector consortium to build it.
    The incinerator is built, but repeatedly fails commissioning tests.
    Eventually the councils decide to pull the plug on the basis that the plant is clearly a turkey. This is after dishing out various management and maintenance contracts worth millions to look after the closed plant.
    Somehow the councils find themselves sharing the liability for a £100millon payment to the an outfit behind the building of the incinerator. Derbyshire's £57million share of this appears to be a large part of what is putting them very in the red this year.

    Can anyone explain:
    a) How did the councils manage to end up paying out to not use a facility which they paid to have built which doesn't work, and seems to have little prospect of ever working?
    b) How on earth this isn't a massive political scandal, given that at best it's spectacular incompetence and at worst it smells more like straight up corruption. To manage to end up in a mess like this must have taken some gritty determination to pick all the wrong choices at every point.

    The spivocracy continues to entertain. They sign a contract to build a new incinerator. The thing is built but cannot be commissioned as has been constructed out of chocolate. Why on earth does the contract not have basic performance clauses in it?

    Here in the private sector contracts are usually pretty tight - certainly are when I am involved. If there is non-conformance or worse, what happens is clearly spelled out. For the protection of all parties.

    And yet in PFI it seems that we pay £stupid for cheaply built crap, with no ability to claw back if the building is unusable or the PPE is unsuitable. The spivs get their money, we get the bill. Why?

    Public procurement is essentially set up to deliver the cheapest option, even if it doesn't work. These systems were set up because we didn't believe public sector procurement was either as cheap as it could be or as honest as it could be. And to be fair, it has succeeded in its aims. What it now doesn't deliver is quality.
    It's quite a challenge for those working in the public sector not to get stuck in this trap, and it's surprising it doesn't happen more often than it does.

    A friend of mine was telling me about public procurement in the Netherlands yesterday. Apparently standard practice is to rule out the cheapest bid. The effect of this is that nobody tries to buy the job - if you can't do it just by being as cheap as possible, you have to be offer something else. You still have to be good value, but have added quality elsewhere.
    It's not perfect of course. And it's considerably more expensive up front. But I find it quite an interesting approach.
    Buy cheap buy twice is always true
    Greetings malcy, trust you are keeping well. I was up in your part of the word a couple of weeks back. Crikey, that rural Ayrshire accent is dense! I normally have a good ear that can get by, but listening to the local farmers I got about one word in six! And that one word was usually "coooooos".....
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,572
    If the candidates are reasonable, there is no good reason to block it. It is no more ridiculous than all the other random appointments to the Lords.

    No supporter of Truss, but it's clear that the establishment boys are grading Sunak on a more charitable curve, considering the economic and political direction of the country.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 21,707
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    I only ever hear about the purported ‘advantages’ of stupid bits of paper from the old farts on PB.

    Last few times I flew, I just had my QR code on my Wallet app on my watch. No stupid bits of paper to fart about with. Straight through. Worked like a dream. Same with trains.

    Go paperless. It’s liberating.
    I've never had a piece of paper run out of battery or need a password. And it rarely needs glasses to operate, if you know what the right piece of paper is.
    But you have lost them.

    Apple Wallet doesn't need a password by the way. Have you never used it??

    And the smartwatch is backed up by the phone, so no issue with battery life either even if you are stupid enough to forget to charge one device or the other. You always need a phone/watch for other stuff in any case – so make sure you charge it.

    It really is very liberating, getting stupid, pointless pieces of paper out of your life.

    Do it. You won't go back.
    I have lost pieces of paper, to be fair.

    And no, I've never used Apple Wallet. I don't have an Apple. I don't use a smartphone enough to justify the cost of an Apple - I've got an Android which costs me about £12 per month. So I don't necessarily know whereof I speak.

    But my heart always sinks when I am called upon to use an app rather than the previous technology. It necessitates having my glasses and working out technical details, and I am always quite surprised if it works. I may be tarring everything with the sins of the worst i.e. car parking apps, but there are many bad apps.

    But surely the anxiety and inconvenience of not losing the pieces of paper is no worse than the anxiety and inconvenience of making sure your phone is in full working order (and indeed of making sure you have it with you)? And you're putting all your eggs in one basket. If you're as reliant on your phone/watch as you seem to be, that's an awful lot of life you suddenly lose if you lose it/it breaks/it runs out of battery. So you just replace lots of small anxieties with one big anxiety.

    I do take your point about getting pieces of paper out of your life. But it's also very liberating getting a reliance on a phone out of your life. Try it! Next time you leave your house, do so without your phone.

    The best thing about smartphones, for me, is that it comes with a camera. It's not as good a camera as the one I used to use (solely because of the lack of optical zoom), but it's so very convenient.

    No, you aren't putting all your eggs in one basket. The phone backs up the watch and vice versa, both can run independent of the other. And Android has a Wallet, I'm told. Try it. You won't go back to cards and stupid pieces of paper.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 21,707
    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Not surprised. Thanks for the information.
    It's fake news. Use Apple Wallet, you won't look back.

    This is how I imagine the wallets of the PB Old Farts.
    It's how we run the country....
    My wallet's thinner and smaller than a mobile phone, and it doesn't smash when I drop it!
    My phone doesn't smash when I drop it either.

    And I don't have a physical wallet – they are pointless. Haven't had one for years.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,278

    Andy_JS said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Not surprised. Thanks for the information.
    It's fake news. Use Apple Wallet, you won't look back.

    This is how I imagine the wallets of the PB Old Farts.
    Not far off. You would no doubt be horrified with what I keep in my wallet!
  • Options
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    As I said earlier joining the single market is the only way to change the EU, and anything else is cosmetic
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574
    edited September 2023
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    There are some small changes that shouldn’t be too controversial and the EU would likely agree with . A large scale re-negotiation I agree is out of the question.
  • Options

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Not surprised. Thanks for the information.
    It's fake news. Use Apple Wallet, you won't look back.

    This is how I imagine the wallets of the PB Old Farts.
    It's how we run the country....
    My wallet's thinner and smaller than a mobile phone, and it doesn't smash when I drop it!
    My phone doesn't smash when I drop it either.

    And I don't have a physical wallet – they are pointless. Haven't had one for years.
    Where do you keep four year old receipts, tickets valid for one trip on the Istanbul Metro in 1998, and your Rumbelows loyalty card if you don't have a wallet?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    I only ever hear about the purported ‘advantages’ of stupid bits of paper from the old farts on PB.

    Last few times I flew, I just had my QR code on my Wallet app on my watch. No stupid bits of paper to fart about with. Straight through. Worked like a dream. Same with trains.

    Go paperless. It’s liberating.
    I've never had a piece of paper run out of battery or need a password. And it rarely needs glasses to operate, if you know what the right piece of paper is.
    But you have lost them.

    Apple Wallet doesn't need a password by the way. Have you never used it??

    And the smartwatch is backed up by the phone, so no issue with battery life either even if you are stupid enough to forget to charge one device or the other. You always need a phone/watch for other stuff in any case – so make sure you charge it.

    It really is very liberating, getting stupid, pointless pieces of paper out of your life.

    Do it. You won't go back.
    I have lost pieces of paper, to be fair.

    And no, I've never used Apple Wallet. I don't have an Apple. I don't use a smartphone enough to justify the cost of an Apple - I've got an Android which costs me about £12 per month. So I don't necessarily know whereof I speak.

    But my heart always sinks when I am called upon to use an app rather than the previous technology. It necessitates having my glasses and working out technical details, and I am always quite surprised if it works. I may be tarring everything with the sins of the worst i.e. car parking apps, but there are many bad apps.

    But surely the anxiety and inconvenience of not losing the pieces of paper is no worse than the anxiety and inconvenience of making sure your phone is in full working order (and indeed of making sure you have it with you)? And you're putting all your eggs in one basket. If you're as reliant on your phone/watch as you seem to be, that's an awful lot of life you suddenly lose if you lose it/it breaks/it runs out of battery. So you just replace lots of small anxieties with one big anxiety.

    I do take your point about getting pieces of paper out of your life. But it's also very liberating getting a reliance on a phone out of your life. Try it! Next time you leave your house, do so without your phone.

    The best thing about smartphones, for me, is that it comes with a camera. It's not as good a camera as the one I used to use (solely because of the lack of optical zoom), but it's so very convenient.

    Losing a phone is a fecking nightmare. It’s like temporarily losing the use of a limb, or suffering a sudden IQ drop of 22.9 points
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    There are some small changes that shouldn’t be too controversial and the EU would likely agree with . A large scale re-negotiation I agree is out of the question.
    Ergo, one way or another, Starmer is lying. Not for the first time
  • Options
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    There are other arrangements already in existence - as an example Turkey has a customs union with the EU. Not *the* customs union, its own version. So we can not join the Customs Union but be in union with customs...
  • Options
    EPG said:

    If the candidates are reasonable, there is no good reason to block it. It is no more ridiculous than all the other random appointments to the Lords.

    No supporter of Truss, but it's clear that the establishment boys are grading Sunak on a more charitable curve, considering the economic and political direction of the country.

    I don't think one can really know what pass mark "the establishment boys" set for Truss, since the fact she and Kwarteng immediately plunged the country into a major financial crisis then sought to tough it out contrary to all good sense, meant that the point is moot. She fell so far below any reasonable pass mark that anyone might have set that it just isn't relevant.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    There are some small changes that shouldn’t be too controversial and the EU would likely agree with . A large scale re-negotiation I agree is out of the question.
    Ergo, one way or another, Starmer is lying. Not for the first time
    He said he’d like to re-write the deal . We don’t know what if any changes are possible until we get to that point . Not sure it’s fair to accuse him of lying . The EU has a lot more goodwill towards Labour than the handmaidens of Brexit.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,390
    Cookie said:

    theProle said:

    Somewhat OT, but it seems my local council (Derbyshire) is on the point of going bust. Further reading suggests that this has been precipitated, at least in part, a failed project to build a waste incinerator.

    From my brief reading up, what seems to have happened is:
    Derbyshire and Derby City Councils teamed up to build a new incinerator. They dished out some sort of PFI type contract to a private sector consortium to build it.
    The incinerator is built, but repeatedly fails commissioning tests.
    Eventually the councils decide to pull the plug on the basis that the plant is clearly a turkey. This is after dishing out various management and maintenance contracts worth millions to look after the closed plant.
    Somehow the councils find themselves sharing the liability for a £100millon payment to the an outfit behind the building of the incinerator. Derbyshire's £57million share of this appears to be a large part of what is putting them very in the red this year.

    Can anyone explain:
    a) How did the councils manage to end up paying out to not use a facility which they paid to have built which doesn't work, and seems to have little prospect of ever working?
    b) How on earth this isn't a massive political scandal, given that at best it's spectacular incompetence and at worst it smells more like straight up corruption. To manage to end up in a mess like this must have taken some gritty determination to pick all the wrong choices at every point.

    The spivocracy continues to entertain. They sign a contract to build a new incinerator. The thing is built but cannot be commissioned as has been constructed out of chocolate. Why on earth does the contract not have basic performance clauses in it?

    Here in the private sector contracts are usually pretty tight - certainly are when I am involved. If there is non-conformance or worse, what happens is clearly spelled out. For the protection of all parties.

    And yet in PFI it seems that we pay £stupid for cheaply built crap, with no ability to claw back if the building is unusable or the PPE is unsuitable. The spivs get their money, we get the bill. Why?

    Public procurement is essentially set up to deliver the cheapest option, even if it doesn't work. These systems were set up because we didn't believe public sector procurement was either as cheap as it could be or as honest as it could be. And to be fair, it has succeeded in its aims. What it now doesn't deliver is quality.
    It's quite a challenge for those working in the public sector not to get stuck in this trap, and it's surprising it doesn't happen more often than it does.

    A friend of mine was telling me about public procurement in the Netherlands yesterday. Apparently standard practice is to rule out the cheapest bid. The effect of this is that nobody tries to buy the job - if you can't do it just by being as cheap as possible, you have to be offer something else. You still have to be good value, but have added quality elsewhere.
    It's not perfect of course. And it's considerably more expensive up front. But I find it quite an interesting approach.
    The other problem is that most of those "negotiating" on behalf of public bodies lack both the technical knowledge and the experience to assess the risks and make sure that they are being allocated appropriately. The price they can understand, a subclause dealing with consequential damages if a subcontractor fails to perform adequately, or a warranty not backed by reputable insurance, not so much.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 21,707
    ....
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,669

    Andy_JS said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    Not surprised. Thanks for the information.
    It's fake news. Use Apple Wallet, you won't look back.

    This is how I imagine the wallets of the PB Old Farts.
    Full of rubbish and not enough 20's and 50's in that abomination
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    There are some small changes that shouldn’t be too controversial and the EU would likely agree with . A large scale re-negotiation I agree is out of the question.
    Ergo, one way or another, Starmer is lying. Not for the first time
    He said he’d like to re-write the deal . We don’t know what if any changes are possible until we get to that point . Not sure it’s fair to accuse him of lying . The EU has a lot more goodwill towards Labour than the handmaidens of Brexit.
    He’s lying because he’s either

    1. Knowingly promising something he can’t deliver - a much ‘better’ deal with the EU. This is impossible without SM/CU membership

    Or

    2. He’s actually intending to take us into some form of the SM/CU, but won’t admit it - ie lying

    I often wonder if it is (2). He can say ‘omg we’ve looked at the books and it’s a disaster, we need to be in the single market’

    But then that means being a rule taker and accepting freedom of movement: a very hard sell
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,390
    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    There are some small changes that shouldn’t be too controversial and the EU would likely agree with . A large scale re-negotiation I agree is out of the question.
    Ergo, one way or another, Starmer is lying. Not for the first time
    He said he’d like to re-write the deal . We don’t know what if any changes are possible until we get to that point . Not sure it’s fair to accuse him of lying . The EU has a lot more goodwill towards Labour than the handmaidens of Brexit.
    If you rule out SM/CU then the golden goose was really Horizon and Sunak has already plucked it. It may be possible to have more trusted trader schemes etc but that will make very little difference to 99.9% of the population.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,154
    edited September 2023
    Sky reporting one of Brands accuser's says a BBC car was sent to pick her up from school when she was 16
  • Options

    They should get the honours but be obliged to put the words "Liz Truss" in them, for instance "Dame Priti Patel, Liz Truss Lady of Marks Tey"

    They already have “post Lloyd George” as a qualifier.

    “Dame Priti Patel, post Lloyd George Liz Truss Lady of Marks Tey" is a bit of a mouthful in my opinion
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,013
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    His Manifesto long before that....
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,558
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    Yes, the collision will take place. But not before the GE, only after. Labour's offer on the EU, however empty it proves, will be better than the Tory offer because that's the one we have got and one way and another lots of people don't care for it. (Business, farmers, fish, people who use airports, the city, holiday makers, employers, NI, everyone in Scotland, the woke, students etc).

    All politics is relative. Labour don't have to score highly on truth, integrity, policy etc; they have to score less low than the Tories. Currently this is not hard.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    Honours for politicians and their cronies should go.

    It's a dishonourable racket.

    Better than pardons.

    Honours are baubles with no practical impact in the real world.

    Composition of the second chamber is a different question but should be address from first principles which no one has been willing to do
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 50,694
    DavidL said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    There are some small changes that shouldn’t be too controversial and the EU would likely agree with . A large scale re-negotiation I agree is out of the question.
    Ergo, one way or another, Starmer is lying. Not for the first time
    He said he’d like to re-write the deal . We don’t know what if any changes are possible until we get to that point . Not sure it’s fair to accuse him of lying . The EU has a lot more goodwill towards Labour than the handmaidens of Brexit.
    If you rule out SM/CU then the golden goose was really Horizon and Sunak has already plucked it. It may be possible to have more trusted trader schemes etc but that will make very little difference to 99.9% of the population.
    Starmer made remarks about ‘getting a better EU deal for my kids’ and to me that means, probably, restoring some kind of Free Movement

    I do wonder if he will go for it
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,390
    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    An anecdote from yesterday evening for those at the bleeding edge of technology:

    Those with paper boarding passes: no problem at the gate. Those using their phones: much faffing about.

    I only ever hear about the purported ‘advantages’ of stupid bits of paper from the old farts on PB.

    Last few times I flew, I just had my QR code on my Wallet app on my watch. No stupid bits of paper to fart about with. Straight through. Worked like a dream. Same with trains.

    Go paperless. It’s liberating.
    I've never had a piece of paper run out of battery or need a password. And it rarely needs glasses to operate, if you know what the right piece of paper is.
    But you have lost them.

    Apple Wallet doesn't need a password by the way. Have you never used it??

    And the smartwatch is backed up by the phone, so no issue with battery life either even if you are stupid enough to forget to charge one device or the other. You always need a phone/watch for other stuff in any case – so make sure you charge it.

    It really is very liberating, getting stupid, pointless pieces of paper out of your life.

    Do it. You won't go back.
    I have lost pieces of paper, to be fair.

    And no, I've never used Apple Wallet. I don't have an Apple. I don't use a smartphone enough to justify the cost of an Apple - I've got an Android which costs me about £12 per month. So I don't necessarily know whereof I speak.

    But my heart always sinks when I am called upon to use an app rather than the previous technology. It necessitates having my glasses and working out technical details, and I am always quite surprised if it works. I may be tarring everything with the sins of the worst i.e. car parking apps, but there are many bad apps.

    But surely the anxiety and inconvenience of not losing the pieces of paper is no worse than the anxiety and inconvenience of making sure your phone is in full working order (and indeed of making sure you have it with you)? And you're putting all your eggs in one basket. If you're as reliant on your phone/watch as you seem to be, that's an awful lot of life you suddenly lose if you lose it/it breaks/it runs out of battery. So you just replace lots of small anxieties with one big anxiety.

    I do take your point about getting pieces of paper out of your life. But it's also very liberating getting a reliance on a phone out of your life. Try it! Next time you leave your house, do so without your phone.

    The best thing about smartphones, for me, is that it comes with a camera. It's not as good a camera as the one I used to use (solely because of the lack of optical zoom), but it's so very convenient.

    Losing a phone is a fecking nightmare. It’s like temporarily losing the use of a limb, or suffering a sudden IQ drop of 22.9 points
    The odd day when I have forgotten to take my phone to work my productivity has massively increased. Time not spent on PB for a start.
  • Options

    theProle said:

    Somewhat OT, but it seems my local council (Derbyshire) is on the point of going bust. Further reading suggests that this has been precipitated, at least in part, a failed project to build a waste incinerator.

    From my brief reading up, what seems to have happened is:
    Derbyshire and Derby City Councils teamed up to build a new incinerator. They dished out some sort of PFI type contract to a private sector consortium to build it.
    The incinerator is built, but repeatedly fails commissioning tests.
    Eventually the councils decide to pull the plug on the basis that the plant is clearly a turkey. This is after dishing out various management and maintenance contracts worth millions to look after the closed plant.
    Somehow the councils find themselves sharing the liability for a £100millon payment to the an outfit behind the building of the incinerator. Derbyshire's £57million share of this appears to be a large part of what is putting them very in the red this year.

    Can anyone explain:
    a) How did the councils manage to end up paying out to not use a facility which they paid to have built which doesn't work, and seems to have little prospect of ever working?
    b) How on earth this isn't a massive political scandal, given that at best it's spectacular incompetence and at worst it smells more like straight up corruption. To manage to end up in a mess like this must have taken some gritty determination to pick all the wrong choices at every point.

    The spivocracy continues to entertain. They sign a contract to build a new incinerator. The thing is built but cannot be commissioned as has been constructed out of chocolate. Why on earth does the contract not have basic performance clauses in it?

    Here in the private sector contracts are usually pretty tight - certainly are when I am involved. If there is non-conformance or worse, what happens is clearly spelled out. For the protection of all parties.

    And yet in PFI it seems that we pay £stupid for cheaply built crap, with no ability to claw
    back if the building is unusable or the PPE is unsuitable. The spivs get their money, we get the bill. Why?
    Is there not a central law department that reviews these things? A council-employed lawyer would be out of their depth
  • Options
    AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,005
    One Russian sub doesn't look like it will be going very far anytime soon.

    Leaked footage of Russian Rostov-on-Don submarine. Sevastopol’s dry dock.

    https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1703727556757688788?s=20
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    There are some small changes that shouldn’t be too controversial and the EU would likely agree with . A large scale re-negotiation I agree is out of the question.
    Ergo, one way or another, Starmer is lying. Not for the first time
    He said he’d like to re-write the deal . We don’t know what if any changes are possible until we get to that point . Not sure it’s fair to accuse him of lying . The EU has a lot more goodwill towards Labour than the handmaidens of Brexit.
    He’s lying because he’s either

    1. Knowingly promising something he can’t deliver - a much ‘better’ deal with the EU. This is impossible without SM/CU membership

    Or

    2. He’s actually intending to take us into some form of the SM/CU, but won’t admit it - ie lying

    I often wonder if it is (2). He can say ‘omg we’ve looked at the books and it’s a disaster, we need to be in the single market’

    But then that means being a rule taker and accepting freedom of movement: a very hard sell
    He’ll say whatever and do something else, whilst calling both ‘principled’

    https://x.com/asfarasdelgados/status/1629875370764693504?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,558
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    There are some small changes that shouldn’t be too controversial and the EU would likely agree with . A large scale re-negotiation I agree is out of the question.
    Ergo, one way or another, Starmer is lying. Not for the first time
    He said he’d like to re-write the deal . We don’t know what if any changes are possible until we get to that point . Not sure it’s fair to accuse him of lying . The EU has a lot more goodwill towards Labour than the handmaidens of Brexit.
    He’s lying because he’s either

    1. Knowingly promising something he can’t deliver - a much ‘better’ deal with the EU. This is impossible without SM/CU membership

    Or

    2. He’s actually intending to take us into some form of the SM/CU, but won’t admit it - ie lying

    I often wonder if it is (2). He can say ‘omg we’ve looked at the books and it’s a disaster, we need to be in the single market’

    But then that means being a rule taker and accepting freedom of movement: a very hard sell
    This is all true. The problem remains. It is economically essential to be in the SM, it is politically essential not to have FOM. This is as true for Sir K as all others.

    As to the future; we should of course have joined EFTA/EEA after the Brexit vote (with FOM of course).perhaps we still shall.

    One of the two essentials (SM or FOM) has to change sometime. I guess in the long run FOM may become less of a hot potato, now we all know that being outside FOM has made no difference at all to the need for inward migration to keep the UK show on the road.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,574
    Cookie said:

    theProle said:

    Somewhat OT, but it seems my local council (Derbyshire) is on the point of going bust. Further reading suggests that this has been precipitated, at least in part, a failed project to build a waste incinerator.

    From my brief reading up, what seems to have happened is:
    Derbyshire and Derby City Councils teamed up to build a new incinerator. They dished out some sort of PFI type contract to a private sector consortium to build it.
    The incinerator is built, but repeatedly fails commissioning tests.
    Eventually the councils decide to pull the plug on the basis that the plant is clearly a turkey. This is after dishing out various management and maintenance contracts worth millions to look after the closed plant.
    Somehow the councils find themselves sharing the liability for a £100millon payment to the an outfit behind the building of the incinerator. Derbyshire's £57million share of this appears to be a large part of what is putting them very in the red this year.

    Can anyone explain:
    a) How did the councils manage to end up paying out to not use a facility which they paid to have built which doesn't work, and seems to have little prospect of ever working?
    b) How on earth this isn't a massive political scandal, given that at best it's spectacular incompetence and at worst it smells more like straight up corruption. To manage to end up in a mess like this must have taken some gritty determination to pick all the wrong choices at every point.

    The spivocracy continues to entertain. They sign a contract to build a new incinerator. The thing is built but cannot be commissioned as has been constructed out of chocolate. Why on earth does the contract not have basic performance clauses in it?

    Here in the private sector contracts are usually pretty tight - certainly are when I am involved. If there is non-conformance or worse, what happens is clearly spelled out. For the protection of all parties.

    And yet in PFI it seems that we pay £stupid for cheaply built crap, with no ability to claw back if the building is unusable or the PPE is unsuitable. The spivs get their money, we get the bill. Why?

    Public procurement is essentially set up to deliver the cheapest option, even if it doesn't work. These systems were set up because we didn't believe public sector procurement was either as cheap as it could be or as honest as it could be. And to be fair, it has succeeded in its aims. What it now doesn't deliver is quality.
    It's quite a challenge for those working in the public sector not to get stuck in this trap, and it's surprising it doesn't happen more often than it does.

    A friend of mine was telling me about public procurement in the Netherlands yesterday. Apparently standard practice is to rule out the cheapest bid. The effect of this is that nobody tries to buy the job - if you can't do it just by being as cheap as possible, you have to be offer something else. You still have to be good value, but have added quality elsewhere.
    It's not perfect of course. And it's considerably more expensive up front. But I find it quite an interesting approach.
    I was advised, when young, to always accept the middle estimate. Was it Ruskin who said something about always someone who can make something a little cheaper and nastier and the man who buys by price alone is that man’s lawful prey!
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    The right seems to be overjoyed that Starmer has talked about improving the Brexit deal . They think it allows the Tories lots of attack lines .

    They seem to be living in 2016.

    Closer ties have strong support across the country .

    Starmer’s EU plan is ripped apart here, by an EU expert (not a Tory)

    https://www.eurointelligence.com/

    “Probably the biggest delusion yet to be unpicked is Sir Keir's repeated assertion that there is a better deal with the EU out there. This is simply not true. There was a lot of vindictive commentary from the EU during the entire Brexit process, but the deal that was eventually agreed was a reasonable third-country trade deal.. If your bottom line is that you do not wish to rejoin the single market and the customs union, there really is not a lot more out there.”

    Starmer has ruled out SM/CU. There is, in that case, nothing to be done. The EU is not interested in rolling over to give Starmer a special deal. Why would it?

    His Labour government is going to collide with the tank traps of reality very quickly
    There are some small changes that shouldn’t be too controversial and the EU would likely agree with . A large scale re-negotiation I agree is out of the question.
    Ergo, one way or another, Starmer is lying. Not for the first time
    He said he’d like to re-write the deal . We don’t know what if any changes are possible until we get to that point . Not sure it’s fair to accuse him of lying . The EU has a lot more goodwill towards Labour than the handmaidens of Brexit.
    He’s lying because he’s either

    1. Knowingly promising something he can’t deliver - a much ‘better’ deal with the EU. This is impossible without SM/CU membership

    Or

    2. He’s actually intending to take us into some form of the SM/CU, but won’t admit it - ie lying

    I often wonder if it is (2). He can say ‘omg we’ve looked at the books and it’s a disaster, we need to be in the single market’

    But then that means being a rule taker and accepting freedom of movement: a very hard sell
    The UK won’t be re-joining the SM or EU CU anytime soon . Thinking Brexit was wrong in hindsight isn’t the same as wanting to re-join . I know lots of Remainers who don’t think we should re-join but want a better relationship with the EU . Some Leavers also want better relations and reduced trade friction . The ships sailed on EU membership for a very long time if ever .
This discussion has been closed.