Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.
Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.
But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.
(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)
So vegan apples taste worse than....apples? Seriously, mention the word vegan,and people lose their shit over it.
I’m not the one losing my shit here…
It weird how wound up some people get about what other people eat. It stems from deep childhood memories and being forced to eat your greens. Anyone who likes their greens is deeply suspicious to them.
Anyone who likes broccoli is surely somebody you should be deeply suspicious of?
If someone wants to eat Broccoli 🥦 then that means there’s less for me. I’m cool with that.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.
Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Does this tell us that Starmer is just stepping back and letting Reeves get on with the economics because it an area in knows absolutely nothing about? Or was he involved in the decision and agreed it was a good move?
The latter is even worse than the former.
I think they genuinely thought that people would blame the Tories, not them. Some remnants of opposition thinking followed them into government. It is very, very hard to successfully blame a decision on a previous government, when you didn’t really say anything of consequence during the election campaign to prepare the ground for it.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.
Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .
Personally I would be surprised if I'm still here to express a view in 5 years time, but I agree; case as stated scraping the WFA without a sensible alternative..... and Pension Credit isn't ..... is a very foolish policy.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.
Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.
But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.
(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)
So vegan apples taste worse than....apples? Seriously, mention the word vegan,and people lose their shit over it.
Because of the ideology that comes with it. It's almost religious.
Vegans hector, lecture and preach, and try to restrict wherever they can, and no-one likes that.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.
I would say the policy on means testing WFP is defensible on the grounds that it's a nonsense benefit in its previous form and if you have to tighten up fiscally, which they do, you might as well start with the benefits that deliver relatively little social benefit.
The government are certainly expending a lot of political capital on this measure. They could have quietly chosen something else to lead on, but they're committed now I would say. If they don't hold the line on this they will never take any uncomfortable decisions at all.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Does this tell us that Starmer is just stepping back and letting Reeves get on with the economics because it an area in knows absolutely nothing about? Or was he involved in the decision and agreed it was a good move?
The latter is even worse than the former.
It's not not knowing about economics, it's not knowing about being poor. I think he claimed that the Toolmaker's telephone was cut off for non payment in his childhood but if that is true he has forgotten how it felt.
It's like Maggie Thatcher - milk snatcher: a third of a pint of milk and £300 and being cold are things which are immediately understood and felt by everyone as opposed to something like "reducing the marginal rate of tax relief on AVCs" which most people don't understand and those who do understand don't grasp so viscerally.
I can't believe Labour don't know this. I think their miscalculation was that they thought the message they were sending was Look what those wicked Tories made us do to you with their evil black hole, rather than the actual Vote labour and freeze.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.
Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.
But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.
(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)
So vegan apples taste worse than....apples? Seriously, mention the word vegan,and people lose their shit over it.
Because of the ideology that comes with it. It's almost religious.
Vegans hector, lecture and preach, and try to restrict wherever they can, and no-one likes that.
Sure, internet celebs and influencers love to shout about their chosen grift, but I don't know any vegans in real life who are like that ( ok, I have met few right on activists.) The sheer volume of food in supermarkets that is accidentally vegan that you normal fellas must be eating will seriously upset you!
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.
Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .
Current pensioners are furious, sure.
(The profile for views on the policy tends to be under 65: "hey ho", over 65: anger so heated that the WFA could become redundant.)
But current pensioners voted Conservative this year, so there isn't that much political capital for Labour to burn there.
And the important thing to remember is that there are far bigger, far more painful, tax rises and public sector activity cuts to come. Because Hunt's fiscal projections depend on fantasy savings and paying staff less when they can get more elsewhere.
The whole conservative leadership race is a complete switch off for me
Just elect a leader and get on with it
Cheers up Big G.
At this rate, there will be another Conservative leadership election soon.
I am completely unfazed by it all and remarkably content, not least because of my health issues over the last year I am just grateful to be able to make the occasional observation
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.
Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.
But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.
(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)
So vegan apples taste worse than....apples? Seriously, mention the word vegan,and people lose their shit over it.
Because of the ideology that comes with it. It's almost religious.
Vegans hector, lecture and preach, and try to restrict wherever they can, and no-one likes that.
Sure, internet celebs and influencers love to shout about their chosen grift, but I don't know any vegans in real life who are like that ( ok, I have met few right on activists.) The sheer volume of food in supermarkets that is accidentally vegan that you normal fellas must be eating will seriously upset you!
It is not the food but the ideology that upsets people.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.
Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.
But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.
(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)
So vegan apples taste worse than....apples? Seriously, mention the word vegan,and people lose their shit over it.
Because of the ideology that comes with it. It's almost religious.
Vegans hector, lecture and preach, and try to restrict wherever they can, and no-one likes that.
Sure, internet celebs and influencers love to shout about their chosen grift, but I don't know any vegans in real life who are like that ( ok, I have met few right on activists.) The sheer volume of food in supermarkets that is accidentally vegan that you normal fellas must be eating will seriously upset you!
It is not the food but the ideology that upsets people.
The Tory party ideology upsets me, I don't demand that they should be silenced though.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.
Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.
But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.
(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)
Pre-covid, the staff canteen at my global megacorp employer sold more plant-based sausage rolls than animal-based sausage rolls. It might be there is more scope here, although since I rarely eat meat, I'm not best-placed to judge. I have heard that plant-based burgers are good but too expensive, and plant-based milk substitutes proliferate in supermarkets.
So it might be that rather than dictate a universal changeover, we concentrate on what works best.
Sure. I’m all for options and responding to customer demand. (Although the unit economics of plant based burgers make me smile. Talking about burning money!)
If they sell, stock them.
But your stock policies shouldn’t be determined by a vote
The best vegan food is the stuff with vegetable based ingredients rather than fake meat. While I was on the Wight for the Bank Holiday I had the Beetroot and walnut burger in this cafe., deliciously moist and flavourful. So much so that Mrs Foxy nicked half of it.
I don't buy the stuff about him not appealing to Reform; I think he'd have made a solid and serious Conservative offer on that, and he'd be great at fighting Labour on the economy and winning back LD seats.
The Tories made a big mistake from a long term point of view in choosing Johnson over Hunt, when all the Tory MPs knew damn well that Johnson lacked the character to be PM. Hunt is a good communicator, a serious person and is rooted close to the political centre ground. They would not be in the mess they are now if they had not made the Faustian pact of electing Johnson.
It is worse than Boris beating Hunt; he also purged much of the remaining (pun intended) talent.
I don't buy the stuff about him not appealing to Reform; I think he'd have made a solid and serious Conservative offer on that, and he'd be great at fighting Labour on the economy and winning back LD seats.
The Tories made a big mistake from a long term point of view in choosing Johnson over Hunt, when all the Tory MPs knew damn well that Johnson lacked the character to be PM. Hunt is a good communicator, a serious person and is rooted close to the political centre ground. They would not be in the mess they are now if they had not made the Faustian pact of electing Johnson.
Hunt being right about Johnson (and coming in as pooper-scooper after Kwateng) is part of the reason he is unacceptable as leader now.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.
Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.
But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.
(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)
So vegan apples taste worse than....apples? Seriously, mention the word vegan,and people lose their shit over it.
Because of the ideology that comes with it. It's almost religious.
Vegans hector, lecture and preach, and try to restrict wherever they can, and no-one likes that.
Yet the only person around here who hectors lectures and preaches about what other people eat is you.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.
Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .
Personally I would be surprised if I'm still here to express a view in 5 years time, but I agree; case as stated scraping the WFA without a sensible alternative..... and Pension Credit isn't ..... is a very foolish policy.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far to focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking there, and would be repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
I’m sure that the Telegraph is pushing an agenda.
Generally, though, vegan food tastes (to me) less good than traditional food. Of course you have it on offer and if it sells better you adjust your stocking policies.
But it seems very odd to have a strategic objective to increase stocking of a product that some customers don’t like as much. It’s a bureaucratic mindset.
(FWIW I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about burping cows and how to manage their methane emissions)
Pre-covid, the staff canteen at my global megacorp employer sold more plant-based sausage rolls than animal-based sausage rolls. It might be there is more scope here, although since I rarely eat meat, I'm not best-placed to judge. I have heard that plant-based burgers are good but too expensive, and plant-based milk substitutes proliferate in supermarkets.
So it might be that rather than dictate a universal changeover, we concentrate on what works best.
Sure. I’m all for options and responding to customer demand. (Although the unit economics of plant based burgers make me smile. Talking about burning money!)
If they sell, stock them.
But your stock policies shouldn’t be determined by a vote
The best vegan food is the stuff with vegetable based ingredients rather than fake meat. While I was on the Wight for the Bank Holiday I had the Beetroot and walnut burger in this cafe., deliciously moist and flavourful. So much so that Mrs Foxy nicked half of it.
The fake stuff is a great gateway drug but I very rarely have anything ultra processed now. If I have to, I'll have a fake meat burger if that's the only option, but with a bit of a Google, you can always find a cafe or restaurant that takes crafting its food seriously, and I've never starved yet. It does mean that we spend a lot of time and money in our own kitchen, but we enjoy that anyway.
I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened. The centre left would presumably prefer Jenrick. I'm not sure why.
As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.
I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.
I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.
They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult
Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.
Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away
TLDR: subs aren't built to do this
Plugging a sub in does rather defeat the point of of having a submarine. It can't deter the Russkies in port.
I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened. The centre left would presumably prefer Jenrick. I'm not sure why.
As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.
Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .
Personally I would be surprised if I'm still here to express a view in 5 years time, but I agree; case as stated scraping the WFA without a sensible alternative..... and Pension Credit isn't ..... is a very foolish policy.
Me too
Understand, but I'm not Liking this post. Wish you well.
I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened. The centre left would presumably prefer Jenrick. I'm not sure why.
As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.
I find her rather alluring if somewhat haughty.
I can't think of any positives for Jenrick.
He’s fairly articulate with a decent speaking voice. Kemi’s voice is OK, Cleverly’s is pleasantly avuncular and my favourite of the voices on offer, Patel’s was always a bit awkward, Tugs is fine in that military RP sort of way but just sounds too trad Tory, and Stride’s is inoffensive.
I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened. The centre left would presumably prefer Jenrick. I'm not sure why.
As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.
I find that whenever she seems to be in the papers she is angry about something. This could be the media portraying her like this unfairly and not reporting any positive actions and words by her or it could be that she’s one of those people that finds faults everywhere but no solutions.
Her silence on the PO issue doesn’t suggest she’s able to connect with people and identify things people care about.
I think she would be a bad, negative choice and maybe needs time to develop her political and human skills - she will blow her long term political career if she wins now.
Unfortunately all the options are crap and so the reality is the party needs to elect a placeholder for a couple of years and allow any hidden stars to emerge outside of the forced leadership election we have now.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.
Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .
Personally I would be surprised if I'm still here to express a view in 5 years time, but I agree; case as stated scraping the WFA without a sensible alternative..... and Pension Credit isn't ..... is a very foolish policy.
Me too
Understand, but I'm not Liking this post. Wish you well.
Thank you, and I think we are both grateful for all our blessings but maybe live more for the day these days
Some serious flash flooding potential tonight in Wessex and South Wales. Labour’s first natural disaster. Don’t think it’ll be enough to dominate the news or require crisis visits but can’t rule it out.
I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.
I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.
They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult
Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.
Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away
TLDR: subs aren't built to do this
Thanks, interesting info. But with a decommissioned submarine, there's no meed to worry about having to drill holes in the hull. Have at it.
I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.
I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.
They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult
Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.
Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away
TLDR: subs aren't built to do this
Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.
The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.
To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Does this tell us that Starmer is just stepping back and letting Reeves get on with the economics because it an area in knows absolutely nothing about? Or was he involved in the decision and agreed it was a good move?
The latter is even worse than the former.
It's not not knowing about economics, it's not knowing about being poor. I think he claimed that the Toolmaker's telephone was cut off for non payment in his childhood but if that is true he has forgotten how it felt.
It's like Maggie Thatcher - milk snatcher: a third of a pint of milk and £300 and being cold are things which are immediately understood and felt by everyone as opposed to something like "reducing the marginal rate of tax relief on AVCs" which most people don't understand and those who do understand don't grasp so viscerally.
I can't believe Labour don't know this. I think their miscalculation was that they thought the message they were sending was Look what those wicked Tories made us do to you with their evil black hole, rather than the actual Vote labour and freeze.
The cut-off for this payment is Pension Credit set at about £11K. This isn't riches but it's a much higher threshold than any other means tested benefit. Those under 65 on Universal Credit and less than half this amount don't get a penny either before or now but maybe struggle with their fuel bills? In any case most of those squealing about winter fuel payments being stopped have incomes significantly in excess of £11K
So we can criticise the current government for not keeping quiet the most vocal pressure group of all - pensioners. But that's entirely what this is about. Let's not pretend there's a policy imperative to keep this blatant bung to older people.
Some serious flash flooding potential tonight in Wessex and South Wales. Labour’s first natural disaster. Don’t think it’ll be enough to dominate the news or require crisis visits but can’t rule it out.
If Truss had not been betrayed by her own party, stayed on and naturally won the election, every British town would now have its own nuclear submarine. The airlift to Coventry was glorious, the blob said it couldn’t be done.
I do wonder if this is why she was reportedly not keen on funding cancer treatment?
I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened. The centre left would presumably prefer Jenrick. I'm not sure why.
As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.
I find her rather alluring if somewhat haughty.
I can't think of any positives for Jenrick.
He’s fairly articulate with a decent speaking voice. Kemi’s voice is OK, Cleverly’s is pleasantly avuncular and my favourite of the voices on offer, Patel’s was always a bit awkward, Tugs is fine in that military RP sort of way but just sounds too trad Tory, and Stride’s is inoffensive.
Actually, all the remaining candidates are better verbal and non-verbal communicators than Truss or Sunak, so that's a plus.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?
If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it
It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.
I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened. The centre left would presumably prefer Jenrick. I'm not sure why.
As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.
I think Badenoch has a talent for irritating the centre left and generating headlines. That's probably a big asset when it comes to winning Tory leadership (the others try but don't seem to quite have the knack).
Jenrick seems to have had rather a lot of corruption allegations for a man in his forties.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far too focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking (or wheeling or cycling) there, and would be likely repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence; that's a lot of lost potential members. They are starting to address that.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
My wife worked in the kitchens at one of the local National Trust places a few years ago. The whole atmosphere is toxic. Work practices are atrocious, training non-existent beyond what is legally required with food prep, and money rules in every aspect of the operation. Each property is pitted against its neighbours for turnover and profit and management style is like something out of the 1950s. Nor do they listen to the local properties about what sells and what doesn't. It was a real eye opener, all the more so compared to the Co-Op where she went to work after quitting the NT.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?
If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it
It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.
I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.
I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.
They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult
Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.
Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away
TLDR: subs aren't built to do this
Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.
The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.
To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.
They'd be better off putting the reactor in a hull built for the purpose of delivering power to shore like the Lomonsov.
Everything nuclear takes 3-10x longer and costs 3-10x more than the initial claim so it's an insane idea anyway. As might be expected, being germinated in the haunted apse that is JRM's skull.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?
If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it
It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.
If only every pensioner was a millionaire with the mansion on the Cote d'Azure... But here's an idea. There will be many pensioners going cold and hungry this winter so how about you invite a few of them down to the south of France with you?
Share some of that Mediterranean sunshine this winter?
Trump: "Young people will be able to buy a home again and be part of the American dream. We will open up portions of federal land for housing construction. Millions of Americans will take part in setting these safe and beautiful communities, reviving the frontier spirit."
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
I feel a bit sorry for Rachel and Sir Keir. Their campaign was peppered with the phrases 'need to make tough decision' and 'painful choices ahead'. Yet as soon as the first painful choice is made everyone starts being beastly to them. Do these people not listen?
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.
Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .
Personally I would be surprised if I'm still here to express a view in 5 years time, but I agree; case as stated scraping the WFA without a sensible alternative..... and Pension Credit isn't ..... is a very foolish policy.
Me too
Understand, but I'm not Liking this post. Wish you well.
Thank you, and I think we are both grateful for all our blessings but maybe live more for the day these days
All the best
Yes, one does wonder when someone says "we'll all go 'somewhere' next year"! Or even asks for a deposit for a Christmas party.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
I feel a bit sorry for Rachel and Sir Keir. Their campaign was peppered with the phrases 'need to make tough decision' and 'painful choices ahead'. Yet as soon as the first painful choice is made everyone starts being beastly to them. Do these people not listen?
They interpreted "painful decisions" as meaning that he would throw his manifesto in the bin and say that we need to rejoin the EU.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.
Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .
Personally I would be surprised if I'm still here to express a view in 5 years time, but I agree; case as stated scraping the WFA without a sensible alternative..... and Pension Credit isn't ..... is a very foolish policy.
Me too
Understand, but I'm not Liking this post. Wish you well.
Thank you, and I think we are both grateful for all our blessings but maybe live more for the day these days
All the best
Yes, one does wonder when someone says "we'll all go 'somewhere' next year"! Or even asks for a deposit for a Christmas party.
There was a time when we would book a cruise 18 months in advance
Our travelling days are over, but so many happy memories, and just content to live quietly in our family home
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.
Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .
Personally I would be surprised if I'm still here to express a view in 5 years time, but I agree; case as stated scraping the WFA without a sensible alternative..... and Pension Credit isn't ..... is a very foolish policy.
Me too
Understand, but I'm not Liking this post. Wish you well.
Thank you, and I think we are both grateful for all our blessings but maybe live more for the day these days
All the best
Yes, one does wonder when someone says "we'll all go 'somewhere' next year"! Or even asks for a deposit for a Christmas party.
There was a time when we would book a cruise 18 months in advance
Our travelling days are over, but so many happy memories, and just content to live quietly in our family home
Indeed. ATM we are trying to keep an eye on the European Interailing of Granddaughters Two and Three. And every so often we have to report on our condition to Granddaughter One, who is doing what her late mother would have done and Keeping An Eye on the old people.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Does this tell us that Starmer is just stepping back and letting Reeves get on with the economics because it an area in knows absolutely nothing about? Or was he involved in the decision and agreed it was a good move?
The latter is even worse than the former.
I think they genuinely thought that people would blame the Tories, not them. Some remnants of opposition thinking followed them into government. It is very, very hard to successfully blame a decision on a previous government, when you didn’t really say anything of consequence during the election campaign to prepare the ground for it.
Timing the announcement at same time as paying off the train drivers unions was not a good look.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?
If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it
It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.
If only every pensioner was a millionaire with the mansion on the Cote d'Azure... But here's an idea. There will be many pensioners going cold and hungry this winter so how about you invite a few of them down to the south of France with you?
Share some of that Mediterranean sunshine this winter?
The facts are that pensioners are the richest cohort. It's also a fact that 25% of pensioners when assets are included are worth more than £1,000,000.
It could be that the dividing line is cutting out worthy people but surely you can see the idiocy of giving 2,500,000 millionaires some living in the hot spots of Europe £300 a year for fuel?
Can't you think of a better use for this money? A new fully equipped cancer hospital perhaps or maybe fix our prison systems. This is the ideal time for a new government to reset the clock
Some serious flash flooding potential tonight in Wessex and South Wales. Labour’s first natural disaster. Don’t think it’ll be enough to dominate the news or require crisis visits but can’t rule it out.
More overflowing sewage maybe
Are you referring to the weather or the Tory leadership contest?
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
I feel a bit sorry for Rachel and Sir Keir. Their campaign was peppered with the phrases 'need to make tough decision' and 'painful choices ahead'. Yet as soon as the first painful choice is made everyone starts being beastly to them. Do these people not listen?
They interpreted "painful decisions" as meaning that he would throw his manifesto in the bin and say that we need to rejoin the EU.
They should have funded the £22b black hole by issuing a special, 'Tory Black Hole' bond to the markets and just got on with the next stage of governing and a new spending framework for going forwards.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far too focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking (or wheeling or cycling) there, and would be likely repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence; that's a lot of lost potential members. They are starting to address that.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
My wife worked in the kitchens at one of the local National Trust places a few years ago. The whole atmosphere is toxic. Work practices are atrocious, training non-existent beyond what is legally required with food prep, and money rules in every aspect of the operation. Each property is pitted against its neighbours for turnover and profit and management style is like something out of the 1950s. Nor do they listen to the local properties about what sells and what doesn't. It was a real eye opener, all the more so compared to the Co-Op where she went to work after quitting the NT.
Do you know if that was characteristic of the organisation or the local property? You are correct that they are very commercial.
(I'm meeting a 35 year NY staff member this week, and I'll ask the question.)
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?
If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it
It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.
If only every pensioner was a millionaire with the mansion on the Cote d'Azure... But here's an idea. There will be many pensioners going cold and hungry this winter so how about you invite a few of them down to the south of France with you?
Share some of that Mediterranean sunshine this winter?
The facts are that pensioners are the richest cohort. It's also a fact that 25% of pensioners when assets are included are worth more than £1,000,000.
It could be that the dividing line is cutting out worthy people but surely you can see the idiocy of giving 2,500,000 millionaires some living in the hot spots of Europe £300 a year for fuel?
Can't you think of a better use for this money? A new fully equipped cancer hospital perhaps or maybe fix our prison systems. This is the ideal time for a new government to reset the clock
No one is denying there are some very rich pensioners but there are also some very poor pensioners and lots that are just about managing but may be forced to choose between heating and eating this winter after having their WFA cut.
Anyway, I take it you won't be inviting some of our poorest pensioners to share your mansion with you this winter?
To be clear, I won't be voting in the leadership. There is just such a collective lack of self-awareness amongst those standing. They are the problem. There is nobody there who will enthuse the public to vote for them, even if Starmer crashes and burns.
As I told my (ex)MP, the best bet is probably to put Cleverly in charge, on the basis that he will oversee a two or three year beauty parade, where some new talent can develop their own manifesto to attract the lost voters.
On that latter point, isn't the truth that the party doesn't understand - or even accept - that it has lost the voters? On the outside I look at the contest and sit agog at the complete lack of self-awareness. Its not just that you got demolished, its *why* you got demolished.
If the Tories want to return to Conservatism - sound finance, pro business, internationalist - then Labour are there begging to be attacked. But instead of that, there seems to be this desperate push to go further down the rabbit hole. The rabbit hole that got you first hated and then demolished.
I don't get it.
Conservatism isn't internationalist; that's a Labour/LD philosophy.
It isn't "nationalist" either - or isolationist - it's about constructively engaging with other nations with the British national interest at heart and robustly defending those interests.
That IS internationalist. Compare and contrast with our recent bout of self harm isolationism, telling Johnny Foreigner who is boss. And then pretending the answer wasn't "not you"
I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened. The centre left would presumably prefer Jenrick. I'm not sure why.
As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.
I find that whenever she seems to be in the papers she is angry about something. This could be the media portraying her like this unfairly and not reporting any positive actions and words by her or it could be that she’s one of those people that finds faults everywhere but no solutions.
Her silence on the PO issue doesn’t suggest she’s able to connect with people and identify things people care about.
I think she would be a bad, negative choice and maybe needs time to develop her political and human skills - she will blow her long term political career if she wins now.
Unfortunately all the options are crap and so the reality is the party needs to elect a placeholder for a couple of years and allow any hidden stars to emerge outside of the forced leadership election we have now.
She does rather like to go missing at key moments like the PO scandal and for that matter the election campaign. At least Cleverly turned up for the media round at the election.
She might be an entertaining LOTO as she is a good and articulate speaker, and is always up for a scrap.
I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened. The centre left would presumably prefer Jenrick. I'm not sure why.
As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.
She was certainly very argumentative about the kids identifying as cats guff, and forthrightly defended herself when called an idiot over it.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far too focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking (or wheeling or cycling) there, and would be likely repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence; that's a lot of lost potential members. They are starting to address that.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
My wife worked in the kitchens at one of the local National Trust places a few years ago. The whole atmosphere is toxic. Work practices are atrocious, training non-existent beyond what is legally required with food prep, and money rules in every aspect of the operation. Each property is pitted against its neighbours for turnover and profit and management style is like something out of the 1950s. Nor do they listen to the local properties about what sells and what doesn't. It was a real eye opener, all the more so compared to the Co-Op where she went to work after quitting the NT.
Never work for a liberal employer, dear boy, they'll sack you on Christmas Eve.
Same for caring professions (there's a phrase you don't hear much these days), universities, charities and churches and whatnot. Because Doing Good is part of what motivates people to do the job, there's a tendency to treat people doing the work badly, because The Cause is greater than all of us.
I suspect that has got worse as a collegiate model of governance has become more top-down corporate. There is plenty wrong with for-profit organisations, but the ones that survive mostly recognise that, if you treat the staff too badly, they can go elsewhere.
I've said for a long time that Badenoch would be the next generation's Liz Truss. In Oppo she couldn't do much damage I suppose. Certainly zero chance of her winning an election
Bloody hell, at first I thought this was a satire on how shit an animated antiwoke comedy hosted/ backed by Musk & Twitter/X would be, but no, it is in fact an animated antiwoke comedy hosted/ backed by Musk & Twitter/X.
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?
If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it
It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.
If only every pensioner was a millionaire with the mansion on the Cote d'Azure... But here's an idea. There will be many pensioners going cold and hungry this winter so how about you invite a few of them down to the south of France with you?
Share some of that Mediterranean sunshine this winter?
The facts are that pensioners are the richest cohort. It's also a fact that 25% of pensioners when assets are included are worth more than £1,000,000.
It could be that the dividing line is cutting out worthy people but surely you can see the idiocy of giving 2,500,000 millionaires some living in the hot spots of Europe £300 a year for fuel?
Can't you think of a better use for this money? A new fully equipped cancer hospital perhaps or maybe fix our prison systems. This is the ideal time for a new government to reset the clock
No one is denying there are some very rich pensioners but there are also some very poor pensioners and lots that are just about managing but may be forced to choose between heating and eating this winter after having their WFA cut.
Anyway, I take it you won't be inviting some of our poorest pensioners to share your mansion with you this winter?
However, the basic pension has gone up by a lot over the last two years. More than wages have, more than the cost of living has, more than other benefits have. (It's fiddly, which is why it's a hard case to explain, but it's a result of the 'heads you win, tails you win, coin lands on its edge you win' model of the triple lock. Basically, the energy crisis inflation spike landed in pensions twice, everywhere else once.)
And that bonus increase, which I don't think anyone anticipated or understood or budgeted for, is quite a bit more than the Winter Fuel Allowance. Means testing that isn't pretty, but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.
I don't buy the stuff about him not appealing to Reform; I think he'd have made a solid and serious Conservative offer on that, and he'd be great at fighting Labour on the economy and winning back LD seats.
The Tories made a big mistake from a long term point of view in choosing Johnson over Hunt, when all the Tory MPs knew damn well that Johnson lacked the character to be PM. Hunt is a good communicator, a serious person and is rooted close to the political centre ground. They would not be in the mess they are now if they had not made the Faustian pact of electing Johnson.
Boris brought benefits along with the risks.
And it wasn't only Boris whose personal behaviour brought disaster - there were many, many others.
But when you have risks you place systems in place to ensure they are managed - any well run organisation knows this.
Where the Conservatives went wrong was in not setting up any safeguards.
Someone like Cyclefree to approve their personal financial activities.
A health and safety manager to ensure they followed their own covid regulations.
How much would that have cost ?
A million a year tops, some of which they could have charged backed to the taxpayer.
Some serious flash flooding potential tonight in Wessex and South Wales. Labour’s first natural disaster. Don’t think it’ll be enough to dominate the news or require crisis visits but can’t rule it out.
More overflowing sewage maybe
Are you referring to the weather or the Tory leadership contest?
What’s the difference between a Tory leadership contender and a river managed by Thames water?
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.
Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .
Its not just current pensioners.
Anyone within ten years of state pension age has just expected future income removed.
"I've been working for over forty years and paying taxes, then they take away money they promised me."
These people will be fearing what else they may lose their entitlement to.
I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.
I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.
They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult
Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.
Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away
TLDR: subs aren't built to do this
Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.
The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.
To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.
They'd be better off putting the reactor in a hull built for the purpose of delivering power to shore like the Lomonsov.
Everything nuclear takes 3-10x longer and costs 3-10x more than the initial claim so it's an insane idea anyway. As might be expected, being germinated in the haunted apse that is JRM's skull.
Quite often, these 'emergency stop gaps done hurriedly on the cheap' ideas are still around decades letter performing useful service. A nuclear submarine is designed not to kill its crew or destroy the oceanic environment - that's a vast deal of the safety work done already.
Hook them all up I say. Cheap nuclear power for everyone.
To be clear, I won't be voting in the leadership. There is just such a collective lack of self-awareness amongst those standing. They are the problem. There is nobody there who will enthuse the public to vote for them, even if Starmer crashes and burns.
As I told my (ex)MP, the best bet is probably to put Cleverly in charge, on the basis that he will oversee a two or three year beauty parade, where some new talent can develop their own manifesto to attract the lost voters.
On that latter point, isn't the truth that the party doesn't understand - or even accept - that it has lost the voters? On the outside I look at the contest and sit agog at the complete lack of self-awareness. Its not just that you got demolished, its *why* you got demolished.
If the Tories want to return to Conservatism - sound finance, pro business, internationalist - then Labour are there begging to be attacked. But instead of that, there seems to be this desperate push to go further down the rabbit hole. The rabbit hole that got you first hated and then demolished.
I don't get it.
Conservatism isn't internationalist; that's a Labour/LD philosophy.
It isn't "nationalist" either - or isolationist - it's about constructively engaging with other nations with the British national interest at heart and robustly defending those interests.
That IS internationalist. Compare and contrast with our recent bout of self harm isolationism, telling Johnny Foreigner who is boss. And then pretending the answer wasn't "not you"
Which Johnny Foreigners have we been telling who's boss? Afaics Russia is the only country that we have behaved in any way combatively toward - do you want us to drop our assertive stance regarding Russia?
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?
If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it
It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.
If only every pensioner was a millionaire with the mansion on the Cote d'Azure... But here's an idea. There will be many pensioners going cold and hungry this winter so how about you invite a few of them down to the south of France with you?
Share some of that Mediterranean sunshine this winter?
The facts are that pensioners are the richest cohort. It's also a fact that 25% of pensioners when assets are included are worth more than £1,000,000.
It could be that the dividing line is cutting out worthy people but surely you can see the idiocy of giving 2,500,000 millionaires some living in the hot spots of Europe £300 a year for fuel?
Can't you think of a better use for this money? A new fully equipped cancer hospital perhaps or maybe fix our prison systems. This is the ideal time for a new government to reset the clock
No one is denying there are some very rich pensioners but there are also some very poor pensioners and lots that are just about managing but may be forced to choose between heating and eating this winter after having their WFA cut.
Anyway, I take it you won't be inviting some of our poorest pensioners to share your mansion with you this winter?
anyone struggling that much is still gonna be eligible, it's just the usual whining from the neediest generation in history
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Agreed . I’m shocked that any politician was so tone deaf to think there wouldn’t be a furore . And the sums raised are paltry. Starmer should have vetoed this move and told Reeves to find the money elsewhere . The WFA debacle has now overtaken everything . Clueless is being kind to both Reeves and Starmer . Labour need to put forward some mitigation for the WFA removal .
Meh. They just got elected, the voters will have forgotten about it in 5 years. This is the right time to hose out the bad policies that are unpopular to end.
Pensioners won’t forget . The policy burns so much political capital for very little in terms of sums raised .
If the state pension has risen another £1500 a year or so in the next 5 years, which party is going to justify yet another few hundred on top?
This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:
Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”
Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’
Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?
If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it
It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.
If only every pensioner was a millionaire with the mansion on the Cote d'Azure... But here's an idea. There will be many pensioners going cold and hungry this winter so how about you invite a few of them down to the south of France with you?
Share some of that Mediterranean sunshine this winter?
The facts are that pensioners are the richest cohort. It's also a fact that 25% of pensioners when assets are included are worth more than £1,000,000.
It could be that the dividing line is cutting out worthy people but surely you can see the idiocy of giving 2,500,000 millionaires some living in the hot spots of Europe £300 a year for fuel?
Can't you think of a better use for this money? A new fully equipped cancer hospital perhaps or maybe fix our prison systems. This is the ideal time for a new government to reset the clock
No one is denying there are some very rich pensioners but there are also some very poor pensioners and lots that are just about managing but may be forced to choose between heating and eating this winter after having their WFA cut.
Anyway, I take it you won't be inviting some of our poorest pensioners to share your mansion with you this winter?
I don't have a mansion. Just a simple dwelling in a particularly nice old town. But I do feel sorry for her. She has to make the books balance and several of her options have gone.
Politically the pensioners make the most sense. They're overwhelmingly Tory. They have the most money as a group and are overwhelmingly Brexiteers so are largely responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place
I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.
I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.
They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult
Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.
Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away
TLDR: subs aren't built to do this
Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.
The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.
To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.
And it doesn't look like there's that much power on one of these things anyway.
If the internet is to be believed, the power output of a submarine reactor is 150-200 MW. That's about a fifth of a gas power station; they tend to be about 1000 MW.
Better than nothing, but not a game changer. Why do I suspect that JRM didn't study much Natural Philosophy at school?
I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.
I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.
They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult
Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.
Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away
TLDR: subs aren't built to do this
Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.
The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.
To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.
And it doesn't look like there's that much power on one of these things anyway.
If the internet is to be believed, the power output of a submarine reactor is 150-200 MW. That's about a fifth of a gas power station; they tend to be about 1000 MW.
Better than nothing, but not a game changer. Why do I suspect that JRM didn't study much Natural Philosophy at school?
Enough to power a big data centre, so not to be sniffed at.
I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.
I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.
They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult
Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.
Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away
TLDR: subs aren't built to do this
Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.
The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.
To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.
And it doesn't look like there's that much power on one of these things anyway.
If the internet is to be believed, the power output of a submarine reactor is 150-200 MW. That's about a fifth of a gas power station; they tend to be about 1000 MW.
Better than nothing, but not a game changer. Why do I suspect that JRM didn't study much Natural Philosophy at school?
JRM is the proof that Eton is the greatest school in the world.
If they could get somebody as dim as him through A-levels, into uni and into a career they must be worth every fecking penny.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far too focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking (or wheeling or cycling) there, and would be likely repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence; that's a lot of lost potential members. They are starting to address that.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
My wife worked in the kitchens at one of the local National Trust places a few years ago. The whole atmosphere is toxic. Work practices are atrocious, training non-existent beyond what is legally required with food prep, and money rules in every aspect of the operation. Each property is pitted against its neighbours for turnover and profit and management style is like something out of the 1950s. Nor do they listen to the local properties about what sells and what doesn't. It was a real eye opener, all the more so compared to the Co-Op where she went to work after quitting the NT.
Never work for a liberal employer, dear boy, they'll sack you on Christmas Eve.
Same for caring professions (there's a phrase you don't hear much these days), universities, charities and churches and whatnot. Because Doing Good is part of what motivates people to do the job, there's a tendency to treat people doing the work badly, because The Cause is greater than all of us.
I suspect that has got worse as a collegiate model of governance has become more top-down corporate. There is plenty wrong with for-profit organisations, but the ones that survive mostly recognise that, if you treat the staff too badly, they can go elsewhere.
Yep, I think that is spot on from start to finish. It has certainly turned me against the NT for more effectively than any supposed 'wokeness' could have done. How you treat your employees is one of the best indicators of your overall ethos as an organisation and the NT fail badly on that score.
What genuinely surprised me, particularly after what happened at the National Trust, is what a brilliant empoyer and force for good in the communiuty the Co-Op has turned out to be. They don't only talk the talk, they actually walk the walk. Starting working for the local Co-Op in the village was the best thing that could have happened for my wife.
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far too focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking (or wheeling or cycling) there, and would be likely repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence; that's a lot of lost potential members. They are starting to address that.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
My wife worked in the kitchens at one of the local National Trust places a few years ago. The whole atmosphere is toxic. Work practices are atrocious, training non-existent beyond what is legally required with food prep, and money rules in every aspect of the operation. Each property is pitted against its neighbours for turnover and profit and management style is like something out of the 1950s. Nor do they listen to the local properties about what sells and what doesn't. It was a real eye opener, all the more so compared to the Co-Op where she went to work after quitting the NT.
Do you know if that was characteristic of the organisation or the local property? You are correct that they are very commercial.
(I'm meeting a 35 year NY staff member this week, and I'll ask the question.)
It appeared to be at least a regional issue. The targetting was driven from regional - or perhaps national - level rather than at the property itself.
I'm old enough to remember the days when the consensus on here was that financial rectitude meant ending the pensioners' gravy train - end the triple lock, no more freebies for this, that and the other. We need to rebalance public spending away from goodies for OAPs and towards tax cuts, including NI, for workers.
However, now that Labour has made a start on this we've changed our minds. They are evil bastards who want to kill the oldies.
I'm not paying great attention to the leadership contest but the hostility to Badenoch is very interesting to me. I sense people feel threatened. The centre left would presumably prefer Jenrick. I'm not sure why.
As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.
I think Badenoch has a talent for irritating the centre left and generating headlines. That's probably a big asset when it comes to winning Tory leadership (the others try but don't seem to quite have the knack).
Jenrick seems to have had rather a lot of corruption allegations for a man in his forties.
“Owning the libtards”, or trolling as we used to call it, isn’t particularly difficult. It’s not exactly a blueprint for how to govern, however.
I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.
I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.
They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult
Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.
Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away
TLDR: subs aren't built to do this
Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.
The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.
To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.
And it doesn't look like there's that much power on one of these things anyway.
If the internet is to be believed, the power output of a submarine reactor is 150-200 MW. That's about a fifth of a gas power station; they tend to be about 1000 MW.
Better than nothing, but not a game changer. Why do I suspect that JRM didn't study much Natural Philosophy at school?
JRM is the proof that Eton is the greatest school in the world.
If they could get somebody as dim as him through A-levels, into uni and into a career they must be worth every fecking penny.
My not very kind take is that JRM does not matter.
He is a sunk cost like the rest of them; a wibbling noise just about rattling the sealed lid of the dustbin of history wherein he has been placed.
I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.
I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.
They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult
Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.
Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away
TLDR: subs aren't built to do this
Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.
The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.
To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.
And it doesn't look like there's that much power on one of these things anyway.
If the internet is to be believed, the power output of a submarine reactor is 150-200 MW. That's about a fifth of a gas power station; they tend to be about 1000 MW.
Better than nothing, but not a game changer. Why do I suspect that JRM didn't study much Natural Philosophy at school?
That said, the first semi-sub wind farm which was in the nes and being hyped because it just passed its 4 year mark is only produced 320MW so in a similar ball park.
This is by no means an attack on offshore wind farms. They are fab. Just thinking that a small nuke seems to do a similar output.
Trump: "Young people will be able to buy a home again and be part of the American dream. We will open up portions of federal land for housing construction. Millions of Americans will take part in setting these safe and beautiful communities, reviving the frontier spirit."
I would guess housing on the “frontier” is already cheap. Millions of Americans want housing where there’s work, in cities.
I'm old enough to remember the days when the consensus on here was that financial rectitude meant ending the pensioners' gravy train - end the triple lock, no more freebies for this, that and the other. We need to rebalance public spending away from goodies for OAPs and towards tax cuts, including NI, for workers.
However, now that Labour has made a start on this we've changed our minds. They are evil bastards who want to kill the oldies.
No I think you are right - and that we were right then as well. My only argument here is the use of the current benefit claimant level as the cliff edge. Properly means testing it all seems far better to me.
I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.
I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.
They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult
Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.
Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away
TLDR: subs aren't built to do this
Once built, a submarine is a horrible thing on which to work.
The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.
To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.
And it doesn't look like there's that much power on one of these things anyway.
If the internet is to be believed, the power output of a submarine reactor is 150-200 MW. That's about a fifth of a gas power station; they tend to be about 1000 MW.
Better than nothing, but not a game changer. Why do I suspect that JRM didn't study much Natural Philosophy at school?
I think a fifth of a gas power station is huge - I had no idea it would be that much!
Not such a big move, then, from 40 to 50 per cent.
But why do they need a plan? Surely you just cater to all customers and stock what sells?
Speaking as an NT life member since just post-University, I don't see how this change undermines catering to all members. That is reflecting social trends, and compared to all of our political parties (for example), and the Telegraph readership, the National Trust has a good age profile, with an average membership age somewhere in the mid-40s. Attention needs to paid to all groups, not just near pensioners and older.
I don't even see the Telegraph showing that the number of meat etc dishes will be reduced in any signficant way; they assume it's a zero sum game. Clearly the customers and marketing and product quality need to match. I'd be concerned if it goes much higher - say to 70-80%.
NT need to keep up with their customers, and there are plenty of things to be addressed. There are certain advantages to reducing the numbers of cattle, such as increased accessibility being possible by the removal of cattle-grids (there are alternative strategies).
NT properties are far too focused on "drive here and walk around" by assumed culture; my local NT rural estate has 175k people within 5 miles who could be walking (or wheeling or cycling) there, and would be likely repeat visitors; but it is not seriously addressed. The focus has been more heavily on tourists. And 25% of adults do not, or cannot, have a driving licence; that's a lot of lost potential members. They are starting to address that.
Reading the Telegraph piece and preceding articles they have published puffing, for example, the "Restore Trust" campaign group, I'd say it's just another element in their culture war, and a farmer is a useful walk-on cameo.
My wife worked in the kitchens at one of the local National Trust places a few years ago. The whole atmosphere is toxic. Work practices are atrocious, training non-existent beyond what is legally required with food prep, and money rules in every aspect of the operation. Each property is pitted against its neighbours for turnover and profit and management style is like something out of the 1950s. Nor do they listen to the local properties about what sells and what doesn't. It was a real eye opener, all the more so compared to the Co-Op where she went to work after quitting the NT.
A friend of mine retrained as a heritage manager several years ago. From what he says the whole industry is very very strange and none of it in a good way. He managed several sites until Covid came along and kyboshed things. He now says he has no intention of going back.
Comments
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Devonport,+Plymouth/@50.3814285,-4.1871571,438m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x486c936d8cb4e8a3:0x262f9d27324661fb!8m2!3d50.3727074!4d-4.1759219!16zL20vMDI0cGZ2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==
He could take them into partnership with Farage but who would care?
Vegans hector, lecture and preach, and try to restrict wherever they can, and no-one likes that.
It costs. For nothing. And it's very difficult to do. So they just stay moored and defuelled.
The government are certainly expending a lot of political capital on this measure. They could have quietly chosen something else to lead on, but they're committed now I would say. If they don't hold the line on this they will never take any uncomfortable decisions at all.
It's like Maggie Thatcher - milk snatcher: a third of a pint of milk and £300 and being cold are things which are immediately understood and felt by everyone as opposed to something like "reducing the marginal rate of tax relief on AVCs" which most people don't understand and those who do understand don't grasp so viscerally.
I can't believe Labour don't know this. I think their miscalculation was that they thought the message they were sending was Look what those wicked Tories made us do to you with their evil black hole, rather than the actual Vote labour and freeze.
The sheer volume of food in supermarkets that is accidentally vegan that you normal fellas must be eating will seriously upset you!
(The profile for views on the policy tends to be under 65: "hey ho", over 65: anger so heated that the WFA could become redundant.)
But current pensioners voted Conservative this year, so there isn't that much political capital for Labour to burn there.
And the important thing to remember is that there are far bigger, far more painful, tax rises and public sector activity cuts to come. Because Hunt's fiscal projections depend on fantasy savings and paying staff less when they can get more elsewhere.
https://thedellseaview.com/menus/
From what I recall he was right last time...
Kemi apparently beats all the others in a head to head with the members... I wouldn't be so confident she won't win? 3.3 doesn't look bad odds tbh.
It does mean that we spend a lot of time and money in our own kitchen, but we enjoy that anyway.
As for Badenoch 'starting an argument in an empty room' where is the evidence she is of that inclination? She's certainly forthright in defending herself I'll give you that.
I can't think of any positives for Jenrick.
Her silence on the PO issue doesn’t suggest she’s able to connect with people and identify things people care about.
I think she would be a bad, negative choice and maybe needs time to develop her political and human skills - she will blow her long term political career if she wins now.
Unfortunately all the options are crap and so the reality is the party needs to elect a placeholder for a couple of years and allow any hidden stars to emerge outside of the forced leadership election we have now.
All the best
Weak men often find strong women threatening...
The reactor is designed for the life of the sub, is one of the first parts installed and the hull gets built around it. Any subsequent attempt to service the reactor involves cutting holes in the side of the rather thick metal hull.
To plug one into the grid, you’d need to find a way to get the entire electrical output onto a few cables that could somehow leave the sub and plug in onshore.
So we can criticise the current government for not keeping quiet the most vocal pressure group of all - pensioners. But that's entirely what this is about. Let's not pretend there's a policy imperative to keep this blatant bung to older people.
I do wonder if this is why she was reportedly not keen on funding cancer treatment?
If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it
It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.
Jenrick seems to have had rather a lot of corruption allegations for a man in his forties.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Everything nuclear takes 3-10x longer and costs 3-10x more than the initial claim so it's an insane idea anyway. As might be expected, being germinated in the haunted apse that is JRM's skull.
Share some of that Mediterranean sunshine this winter?
https://x.com/theblaze/status/1831740703908540467
Trump: "Young people will be able to buy a home again and be part of the American dream. We will open up portions of federal land for housing construction. Millions of Americans will take part in setting these safe and beautiful communities, reviving the frontier spirit."
Our travelling days are over, but so many happy memories, and just content to live quietly in our family home
And every so often we have to report on our condition to Granddaughter One, who is doing what her late mother would have done and Keeping An Eye on the old people.
It could be that the dividing line is cutting out worthy people but surely you can see the idiocy of giving 2,500,000 millionaires some living in the hot spots of Europe £300 a year for fuel?
Can't you think of a better use for this money? A new fully equipped cancer hospital perhaps or maybe fix our prison systems. This is the ideal time for a new government to reset the clock
Elect a placeholder: the bleeding will gradually continue, and the patient is already in a critical condition.
Elect an non-placeholder: the risk is getting the shock therapy wrong and killing the patient stone dead.
The Trusstastrophe shows what happens if you go along the lines "we must do something, this is something..."
(I'm meeting a 35 year NY staff member this week, and I'll ask the question.)
Anyway, I take it you won't be inviting some of our poorest pensioners to share your mansion with you this winter?
She might be an entertaining LOTO as she is a good and articulate speaker, and is always up for a scrap.
Same for caring professions (there's a phrase you don't hear much these days), universities, charities and churches and whatnot. Because Doing Good is part of what motivates people to do the job, there's a tendency to treat people doing the work badly, because The Cause is greater than all of us.
I suspect that has got worse as a collegiate model of governance has become more top-down corporate. There is plenty wrong with for-profit organisations, but the ones that survive mostly recognise that, if you treat the staff too badly, they can go elsewhere.
https://x.com/xnewnorm/status/1805608022875484270?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
And that bonus increase, which I don't think anyone anticipated or understood or budgeted for, is quite a bit more than the Winter Fuel Allowance. Means testing that isn't pretty, but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.
And it wasn't only Boris whose personal behaviour brought disaster - there were many, many others.
But when you have risks you place systems in place to ensure they are managed - any well run organisation knows this.
Where the Conservatives went wrong was in not setting up any safeguards.
Someone like Cyclefree to approve their personal financial activities.
A health and safety manager to ensure they followed their own covid regulations.
How much would that have cost ?
A million a year tops, some of which they could have charged backed to the taxpayer.
And Boris would still be in Downing Street.
One’s full of shit and the other’s just wet.
Anyone within ten years of state pension age has just expected future income removed.
"I've been working for over forty years and paying taxes, then they take away money they promised me."
These people will be fearing what else they may lose their entitlement to.
Hook them all up I say. Cheap nuclear power for everyone.
Politically the pensioners make the most sense. They're overwhelmingly Tory. They have the most money as a group and are overwhelmingly Brexiteers so are largely responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place
If the internet is to be believed, the power output of a submarine reactor is 150-200 MW. That's about a fifth of a gas power station; they tend to be about 1000 MW.
Better than nothing, but not a game changer. Why do I suspect that JRM didn't study much Natural Philosophy at school?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx28d72948vo
If they could get somebody as dim as him through A-levels, into uni and into a career they must be worth every fecking penny.
What genuinely surprised me, particularly after what happened at the National Trust, is what a brilliant empoyer and force for good in the communiuty the Co-Op has turned out to be. They don't only talk the talk, they actually walk the walk. Starting working for the local Co-Op in the village was the best thing that could have happened for my wife.
However, now that Labour has made a start on this we've changed our minds. They are evil bastards who want to kill the oldies.
He is a sunk cost like the rest of them; a wibbling noise just about rattling the sealed lid of the dustbin of history wherein he has been placed.
This is by no means an attack on offshore wind farms. They are fab. Just thinking that a small nuke seems to do a similar output.
I like it but couldn't see anything in the article to back it up