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 margins are important even though Labour always have a deficit with those voters . Just imagine the GE if Labour had announced this policy before the vote .
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 agree with you in principle - I think more people than currently planned should continue to get it. In practice, though, means testing will be hideously complex and expensive. The advantage of Reeves' approach is that there's virtually no cost. People like me, who receive the WFA and don't need it, can easily just be removed from the system.
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.
That isn't really a 'nuclear' issue; more of an electric systems one.
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.
Sounds like whistling a happy tune to me. War not going as well as you thought it would? Oh well.
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.
That's inteesting.
We need to remember that the Co-op is a Federation of (many local or regional) organisations, not just one.
I'm still ruminating on what can be done about my local Co-op that withdrew 1/3 of its lines a few days ago, with the staff blaming systematic shop-lifting - youths walking in several times a day, filling a bag, and walking out again. But the staff stay for years and always seem happy. This is not a poor area, but the Co-op is easily accessible as it is on the former A38 within 3 minutes of the edge of town. Decades ago we had some problems with mobile burglars driving in down the motorway from Liverpool who went for the same area.
The underlying issue seems to me to be the Notts Constabulary being a little slopey shouldered with respect to some crime and ASB. This is the response they are giving to I think Lee Anderson about motorbike ASB in one or two areas of the town (quoted on his Facebook group). They already have all sorts of powers for addressing motorcycle ASB:
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.
That isn't really a 'nuclear' issue; more of an electric systems one.
British (conventional) aircraft carriers used to be able to provide shore power for emergencies; I've no idea if the new QE class can.
An interesting piece, thanks. None of the listed objections feels like a big blocker to a semi-permanent solution of using an decommissioned submarine.
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.
Sounds like whistling a happy tune to me. War not going as well as you thought it would? Oh well.
The "crypto ally" quoted there is Nic Carter, who is one of the stupidest people in crypto, and there are some very stupid people in crypto.
It makes the Trump family money and loses basically zero votes. Apparently Nic is worried that embracing an obvious grift will lose support from the crypto industry, but everybody except him knows perfectly well that Trump is a scammer. The crypto industry is giving him bribes because they know he can be bribed.
An honest man is one who, once bribed, stays bribed
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.
I know. I happened to say that I didn’t like some vegan food and @TwistedFireStopper got really defensive
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
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 agree with you in principle - I think more people than currently planned should continue to get it. In practice, though, means testing will be hideously complex and expensive. The advantage of Reeves' approach is that there's virtually no cost. People like me, who receive the WFA and don't need it, can easily just be removed from the system.
As I have said before, I don't agree with the argument that means testing would be complex and expensive, any more than the tax sytem has to be somplex and expensive. Both could be simplified as they are in other countries.Indeed it strikes me that the bast way to deal with both is a massively simplified system here all income is taxed at the same rates - including benefits. Whatever handouts the Government want to give can be clawed back in the tax system where appropriate based on overall income.
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.
That's inteesting.
We need to remember that the Co-op is a Federation of (many local or regional) organisations, not just one.
I'm still ruminating on what can be done about my local Co-op that withdrew 1/3 of its lines a few days ago, with the staff blaming systematic shop-lifting - youths walking in several times a day, filling a bag, and walking out again. But the staff stay for years and always seem happy. This is not a poor area, but the Co-op is easily accessible as it is on the former A38 within 3 minutes of the edge of town. Decades ago we had some problems with mobile burglars driving in down the motorway from Liverpool who went for the same area.
The underlying issue seems to me to be the Notts Constabulary being a little slopey shouldered with respect to some crime and ASB. This is the response they are giving to I think Lee Anderson about motorbike ASB in one or two areas of the town (quoted on his Facebook group). They already have all sorts of powers for addressing motorcycle ASB:
Weirdly in Lincolnshire there is an entirely separate Lincolnshire Co-Op as well as the national, federated version. Whilst they have similar branding and by agreement carry the same Co-Op lines they are an entirely seperate organisation with a separate history. My wife works for the national version, in Lincolnshire, but can't use her loyalty card in the Lincolnshire version. Even strannger the Lincoln Co-Op has expanded across the border into Nottinghamshire so most of the Co-Ops in Newark are Lincolnshire Co-Ops not the national federated version.
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.
Lloyd George knew my father Father knew Lloyd George Lloyd George knew my father Father knew Lloyd George
Remarkably, that is true in JRM's case, whose first job with Hong Kong-based fund managers LGM Management was arranged between his father, William Rees-Mogg, and the eponymous Robert Lloyd George (great-grandson).
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Every pensioner has an asset value of £200k as they get the state pension. That's a rough equivalent that would be needed to be saved to get the pension.
The Jenrick campaign were previously claiming that they already had 40 votes, enough to guarantee going to the members so it makes sense that he might have wanted to used some tactically. The members polling had Badenoch beating everyone and Jenrick beating everyone except Badenoch so it makes sense to try and knock her out.
I thank Badenoch is likely toast. All the other candidates will want to knock her out so she needed a higher starting point to be able to avoid being a victim of tactical voting.
I think it highlights the importance of "clubbability" - it feels like however talented she may be, a lot of Tory MPs simply don't like Badenoch for whatever reason.
NONE of Britain's attack submarines are at sea: 'Utterly dire' state of the Royal Navy is laid bare in shocking figures - as US subs are 'called in to protect UK's "bomber" fleet'
The Jenrick campaign were previously claiming that they already had 40 votes, enough to guarantee going to the members so it makes sense that he might have wanted to used some tactically. The members polling had Badenoch beating everyone and Jenrick beating everyone except Badenoch so it makes sense to try and knock her out.
I thank Badenoch is likely toast. All the other candidates will want to knock her out so she needed a higher starting point to be able to avoid being a victim of tactical voting.
I think it highlights the importance of "clubbability" - it feels like however talented she may be, a lot of Tory MPs simply don't like Badenoch for whatever reason.
The Right don't like her because they think she is too wet. The Wets don't like her because they think she is too Right Wing. It seems to me that should make her the best candidate. I do think The current Tory party is pretty much ungovernable given how ideologically split it is. Losing this time might be for the best for some of the more centrist candidates.
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.
That's inteesting.
We need to remember that the Co-op is a Federation of (many local or regional) organisations, not just one.
I'm still ruminating on what can be done about my local Co-op that withdrew 1/3 of its lines a few days ago, with the staff blaming systematic shop-lifting - youths walking in several times a day, filling a bag, and walking out again. But the staff stay for years and always seem happy. This is not a poor area, but the Co-op is easily accessible as it is on the former A38 within 3 minutes of the edge of town. Decades ago we had some problems with mobile burglars driving in down the motorway from Liverpool who went for the same area.
The underlying issue seems to me to be the Notts Constabulary being a little slopey shouldered with respect to some crime and ASB. This is the response they are giving to I think Lee Anderson about motorbike ASB in one or two areas of the town (quoted on his Facebook group). They already have all sorts of powers for addressing motorcycle ASB:
Weirdly in Lincolnshire there is an entirely separate Lincolnshire Co-Op as well as the national, federated version. Whilst they have similar branding and by agreement carry the same Co-Op lines they are an entirely seperate organisation with a separate history. My wife works for the national version, in Lincolnshire, but can't use her loyalty card in the Lincolnshire version. Even strannger the Lincoln Co-Op has expanded across the border into Nottinghamshire so most of the Co-Ops in Newark are Lincolnshire Co-Ops not the national federated version.
Perhaps Newark is really part of Lincolnshire in the same way that Dore is really part of Derbyshire?
IIRC it supported Cromwell in the Civil War .... .
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.
That's inteesting.
We need to remember that the Co-op is a Federation of (many local or regional) organisations, not just one.
I'm still ruminating on what can be done about my local Co-op that withdrew 1/3 of its lines a few days ago, with the staff blaming systematic shop-lifting - youths walking in several times a day, filling a bag, and walking out again. But the staff stay for years and always seem happy. This is not a poor area, but the Co-op is easily accessible as it is on the former A38 within 3 minutes of the edge of town. Decades ago we had some problems with mobile burglars driving in down the motorway from Liverpool who went for the same area.
The underlying issue seems to me to be the Notts Constabulary being a little slopey shouldered with respect to some crime and ASB. This is the response they are giving to I think Lee Anderson about motorbike ASB in one or two areas of the town (quoted on his Facebook group). They already have all sorts of powers for addressing motorcycle ASB:
Weirdly in Lincolnshire there is an entirely separate Lincolnshire Co-Op as well as the national, federated version. Whilst they have similar branding and by agreement carry the same Co-Op lines they are an entirely seperate organisation with a separate history. My wife works for the national version, in Lincolnshire, but can't use her loyalty card in the Lincolnshire version. Even strannger the Lincoln Co-Op has expanded across the border into Nottinghamshire so most of the Co-Ops in Newark are Lincolnshire Co-Ops not the national federated version.
Perhaps Newark is really part of Lincolnshire in the same way that Dore is really part of Derbyshire?
IIRC it supported Cromwell in the Civil War .... .
Erm no.
Royalist to its core. Doesn't sit well with me as I am very much on the Parliamentarian side in that particlar scrap.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Every pensioner has an asset value of £200k as they get the state pension. That's a rough equivalent that would be needed to be saved to get the pension.
As a pendant, that is surely only this with full contributions.
Pensioner poverty is afaik skewed to former non-working spouses, though I do not have a handle on the real detail.
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
If you pile up regulations without enforcement, it will make things *worse*. Because cheating on the regulations, “to get things done” becomes endemic. And cheating saves tons of money - so bad behaviour is *rewarded*
Bad Drives Out Good.
In the construction industry, the telephone directory project plans are unread.
Meanwhile, buildings are built that are discovered to have substandard concrete. For example.
The Victorians knew the cure (ha!) for this - a sample of the concrete poured into a standard mould, cured and tested to prove quality. Circa 1870 or so.
What we need are simple, direct, easy to understand regulations with tons of actual enforcement.
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.
That's inteesting.
We need to remember that the Co-op is a Federation of (many local or regional) organisations, not just one.
I'm still ruminating on what can be done about my local Co-op that withdrew 1/3 of its lines a few days ago, with the staff blaming systematic shop-lifting - youths walking in several times a day, filling a bag, and walking out again. But the staff stay for years and always seem happy. This is not a poor area, but the Co-op is easily accessible as it is on the former A38 within 3 minutes of the edge of town. Decades ago we had some problems with mobile burglars driving in down the motorway from Liverpool who went for the same area.
The underlying issue seems to me to be the Notts Constabulary being a little slopey shouldered with respect to some crime and ASB. This is the response they are giving to I think Lee Anderson about motorbike ASB in one or two areas of the town (quoted on his Facebook group). They already have all sorts of powers for addressing motorcycle ASB:
Weirdly in Lincolnshire there is an entirely separate Lincolnshire Co-Op as well as the national, federated version. Whilst they have similar branding and by agreement carry the same Co-Op lines they are an entirely seperate organisation with a separate history. My wife works for the national version, in Lincolnshire, but can't use her loyalty card in the Lincolnshire version. Even strannger the Lincoln Co-Op has expanded across the border into Nottinghamshire so most of the Co-Ops in Newark are Lincolnshire Co-Ops not the national federated version.
Perhaps Newark is really part of Lincolnshire in the same way that Dore is really part of Derbyshire?
IIRC it supported Cromwell in the Civil War .... .
Erm no.
Royalist to its core. Doesn't sit well with me as I am very much on the Parliamentarian side in that particlar scrap.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
On your latter point - yes, they're asset millionaires - but those assets enable them to live rent free. Assets make you richer and your living costs lower.
The Jenrick campaign were previously claiming that they already had 40 votes, enough to guarantee going to the members so it makes sense that he might have wanted to used some tactically. The members polling had Badenoch beating everyone and Jenrick beating everyone except Badenoch so it makes sense to try and knock her out.
I thank Badenoch is likely toast. All the other candidates will want to knock her out so she needed a higher starting point to be able to avoid being a victim of tactical voting.
I think it highlights the importance of "clubbability" - it feels like however talented she may be, a lot of Tory MPs simply don't like Badenoch for whatever reason.
"But if you forced me to place a bet on what will happen, my current expectations are closer to the scenario offered by my colleague — in which Trump, not Harris, is the next president of the United States."
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Every pensioner has an asset value of £200k as they get the state pension. That's a rough equivalent that would be needed to be saved to get the pension.
As a pendant, that is surely only this with full contributions.
Pensioner poverty is afaik skewed to former non-working spouses, though I do not have a handle on the real detail.
As a pendant, if you haven't made full contributions you're left dangling?
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
If you pile up regulations without enforcement, it will make things *worse*. Because cheating on the regulations, “to get things done” becomes endemic. And cheating saves tons of money - so bad behaviour is *rewarded*
Bad Drives Out Good.
In the construction industry, the telephone directory project plans are unread.
Meanwhile, buildings are built that are discovered to have substandard concrete. For example.
The Victorians knew the cure (ha!) for this - a sample of the concrete poured into a standard mould, cured and tested to prove quality. Circa 1870 or so.
What we need are simple, direct, easy to understand regulations with tons of actual enforcement.
Test cubes are still a very standard part of civil engineering, as are slump cones for immediate testing on-site. The problem with test cubes is that you only get the results weeks later; slump cones give an immediate comparison between concrete batches.
I like it but couldn't see anything in the article to back it up
It's been a traditional insult thrown at her for years, similarly to Brillo, from the left on social media mainly. To do with former membership?
It isn't really fair - Brillo (at his best) was an entertaining and robust interviewer who tended to try to explore an issue rather than score points; yes, he was significantly more "Labour-sceptical" than the median at the time, and is no doubt right of centre in his personal life (as indeed was Robin Oakley) but he was good at his job.
LauraK is poor at her job. The basis of the accusation that she is Tory-biased seems to be her local-newspaper-style "regurgitate the press release" approach to journalism. I don't think it goes much deeper than 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
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.
Ooh, unkind! But while you are here - I just noticed this: a long standing pedestrian access issue resolved. I don't know the details, but I wonder how far it was delayed by the need to be part of something else? OTOH they seem at least to have tried to incorporate sensible access into a wider development while at it.
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
If you pile up regulations without enforcement, it will make things *worse*. Because cheating on the regulations, “to get things done” becomes endemic. And cheating saves tons of money - so bad behaviour is *rewarded*
Bad Drives Out Good.
In the construction industry, the telephone directory project plans are unread.
Meanwhile, buildings are built that are discovered to have substandard concrete. For example.
The Victorians knew the cure (ha!) for this - a sample of the concrete poured into a standard mould, cured and tested to prove quality. Circa 1870 or so.
What we need are simple, direct, easy to understand regulations with tons of actual enforcement.
Test cubes are still a very standard part of civil engineering, as are slump cones for immediate testing on-site. The problem with test cubes is that you only get the results weeks later; slump cones give an immediate comparison between concrete batches.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Every pensioner has an asset value of £200k as they get the state pension. That's a rough equivalent that would be needed to be saved to get the pension.
Yes, current 65 year old annuity best buys, with inflation, are around 5.5%. So 200k buys you an 11k pension.
It was a lot worse before recent interest rate rises and will get worse when they return back down. And that’s at current slightly higher annuity rates, and probably assuming no inflation.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Every pensioner has an asset value of £200k as they get the state pension. That's a rough equivalent that would be needed to be saved to get the pension.
Yes, current 65 year old annuity best buys, with inflation, are around 5.5%. So 200k buys you an 11k pension.
It was a lot worse before recent interest rate rises and will get worse when they return back down. And that’s at current slightly higher annuity rates, and probably assuming no inflation.
Might there be a case for governments to sell better value annuities, and also to offer easy equity release to cash-poor, asset-rich pensioners?
US Carrier groups providing disaster relief has been a common thing for yonks.
Because carriers have
1) huge hospital capacity 2) tons of helicopters 3) tons of fuel and maintenance facilities for helicopters. 4) water distilling capability - if flight operations are suspended, the capacity to make water is enough for 10 of thousands of people, IIRC 5) if a bunch of the combat aircraft are flown off to land bases - huge amounts of space to organise stuff/use for logistics.
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.
That's inteesting.
We need to remember that the Co-op is a Federation of (many local or regional) organisations, not just one.
I'm still ruminating on what can be done about my local Co-op that withdrew 1/3 of its lines a few days ago, with the staff blaming systematic shop-lifting - youths walking in several times a day, filling a bag, and walking out again. But the staff stay for years and always seem happy. This is not a poor area, but the Co-op is easily accessible as it is on the former A38 within 3 minutes of the edge of town. Decades ago we had some problems with mobile burglars driving in down the motorway from Liverpool who went for the same area.
The underlying issue seems to me to be the Notts Constabulary being a little slopey shouldered with respect to some crime and ASB. This is the response they are giving to I think Lee Anderson about motorbike ASB in one or two areas of the town (quoted on his Facebook group). They already have all sorts of powers for addressing motorcycle ASB:
Weirdly in Lincolnshire there is an entirely separate Lincolnshire Co-Op as well as the national, federated version. Whilst they have similar branding and by agreement carry the same Co-Op lines they are an entirely seperate organisation with a separate history. My wife works for the national version, in Lincolnshire, but can't use her loyalty card in the Lincolnshire version. Even strannger the Lincoln Co-Op has expanded across the border into Nottinghamshire so most of the Co-Ops in Newark are Lincolnshire Co-Ops not the national federated version.
Perhaps Newark is really part of Lincolnshire in the same way that Dore is really part of Derbyshire?
IIRC it supported Cromwell in the Civil War .... .
Erm no.
Royalist to its core. Doesn't sit well with me as I am very much on the Parliamentarian side in that particlar scrap.
* Like Ed Balls, Ed Davey and Geoff Hoon, a High School boy.
Oh very much so. Hutchinson wasn't really much associated with Newark with his houe being at Owthorpe south of Nottingham. Newark was utterly Royalist and withstood 3 Parliamentarian sieges. It still has the best collection of Civil War Earthworks in the country which is one reason why the National Civil War Mueum is based there. It only surrendered on the direct orders of the King after he was captured at nearby Southwell.
"But if you forced me to place a bet on what will happen, my current expectations are closer to the scenario offered by my colleague — in which Trump, not Harris, is the next president of the United States."
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
If you pile up regulations without enforcement, it will make things *worse*. Because cheating on the regulations, “to get things done” becomes endemic. And cheating saves tons of money - so bad behaviour is *rewarded*
Bad Drives Out Good.
In the construction industry, the telephone directory project plans are unread.
Meanwhile, buildings are built that are discovered to have substandard concrete. For example.
The Victorians knew the cure (ha!) for this - a sample of the concrete poured into a standard mould, cured and tested to prove quality. Circa 1870 or so.
What we need are simple, direct, easy to understand regulations with tons of actual enforcement.
Test cubes are still a very standard part of civil engineering, as are slump cones for immediate testing on-site. The problem with test cubes is that you only get the results weeks later; slump cones give an immediate comparison between concrete batches.
(I don't know about test cubes being used in house building; but I've seen a slump cone being washed out on a nearby site.)
Indeed
This methodology has existed for *centuries* - yet we have actual 15 story buildings with substandard concrete.
Another 10,000 pages of paper won’t stop the next Grenfell. What will stop it is enforcement of rules that are actually followed.
I've been wittering on about this on PB for (probably) as long as I've been on here. It's not as though I don't have a load of new-builds around me to study.
I may have posted this before, but here's a house built this year in West Cambourne. Note how they've used any colour of brick they could find on site. The house has since been rendered, but it's a sign of a really poor job and lack of care, and apparently it will reduce the render's lifetime due to differential heating of the differently-coloured bricks.
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
If you pile up regulations without enforcement, it will make things *worse*. Because cheating on the regulations, “to get things done” becomes endemic. And cheating saves tons of money - so bad behaviour is *rewarded*
Bad Drives Out Good.
In the construction industry, the telephone directory project plans are unread.
Meanwhile, buildings are built that are discovered to have substandard concrete. For example.
The Victorians knew the cure (ha!) for this - a sample of the concrete poured into a standard mould, cured and tested to prove quality. Circa 1870 or so.
What we need are simple, direct, easy to understand regulations with tons of actual enforcement.
Test cubes are still a very standard part of civil engineering, as are slump cones for immediate testing on-site. The problem with test cubes is that you only get the results weeks later; slump cones give an immediate comparison between concrete batches.
(I don't know about test cubes being used in house building; but I've seen a slump cone being washed out on a nearby site.)
Indeed
This methodology has existed for *centuries* - yet we have actual 15 story buildings with substandard concrete.
Another 10,000 pages of paper won’t stop the next Grenfell. What will stop it is enforcement of rules that are actually followed.
I've been wittering on about this on PB for (probably) as long as I've been on here. It's not as though I don't have a load of new-builds around me to study.
I may have posted this before, but here's a house built this year in West Cambourne. Note how they've used any colour of brick they could find on site. The house has since been rendered, but it's a sign of a really poor job and lack of care, and apparently it will reduce the render's lifetime due to differential heating of the differently-coloured bricks.
Wow - it feels like there should be something in building codes about that sort of thing.
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
If you pile up regulations without enforcement, it will make things *worse*. Because cheating on the regulations, “to get things done” becomes endemic. And cheating saves tons of money - so bad behaviour is *rewarded*
Bad Drives Out Good.
In the construction industry, the telephone directory project plans are unread.
Meanwhile, buildings are built that are discovered to have substandard concrete. For example.
The Victorians knew the cure (ha!) for this - a sample of the concrete poured into a standard mould, cured and tested to prove quality. Circa 1870 or so.
What we need are simple, direct, easy to understand regulations with tons of actual enforcement.
Test cubes are still a very standard part of civil engineering, as are slump cones for immediate testing on-site. The problem with test cubes is that you only get the results weeks later; slump cones give an immediate comparison between concrete batches.
(I don't know about test cubes being used in house building; but I've seen a slump cone being washed out on a nearby site.)
Indeed
This methodology has existed for *centuries* - yet we have actual 15 story buildings with substandard concrete.
Another 10,000 pages of paper won’t stop the next Grenfell. What will stop it is enforcement of rules that are actually followed.
I've been wittering on about this on PB for (probably) as long as I've been on here. It's not as though I don't have a load of new-builds around me to study.
I may have posted this before, but here's a house built this year in West Cambourne. Note how they've used any colour of brick they could find on site. The house has since been rendered, but it's a sign of a really poor job and lack of care, and apparently it will reduce the render's lifetime due to differential heating of the differently-coloured bricks.
(Snip)
Wow - it feels like there should be something in building codes about that sort of thing.
I've seen about a dozen like it around Upper Cambourne and West Cambourne. And they're only the ones visible from public roads.
I mean, it's not *structural*; but it means you could never take the render off, if you wanted, and it's such a sign of lack of care that you wonder what else they don't care about.
As I've said many times passim: any house being built needs an 'owner' / 'client'; someone who will tell the builders they're being stoopid or making a mistake; someone to watch over them. And local councils' building departments are nto doing it.
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
If you pile up regulations without enforcement, it will make things *worse*. Because cheating on the regulations, “to get things done” becomes endemic. And cheating saves tons of money - so bad behaviour is *rewarded*
Bad Drives Out Good.
In the construction industry, the telephone directory project plans are unread.
Meanwhile, buildings are built that are discovered to have substandard concrete. For example.
The Victorians knew the cure (ha!) for this - a sample of the concrete poured into a standard mould, cured and tested to prove quality. Circa 1870 or so.
What we need are simple, direct, easy to understand regulations with tons of actual enforcement.
Test cubes are still a very standard part of civil engineering, as are slump cones for immediate testing on-site. The problem with test cubes is that you only get the results weeks later; slump cones give an immediate comparison between concrete batches.
(I don't know about test cubes being used in house building; but I've seen a slump cone being washed out on a nearby site.)
Indeed
This methodology has existed for *centuries* - yet we have actual 15 story buildings with substandard concrete.
Another 10,000 pages of paper won’t stop the next Grenfell. What will stop it is enforcement of rules that are actually followed.
I've been wittering on about this on PB for (probably) as long as I've been on here. It's not as though I don't have a load of new-builds around me to study.
I may have posted this before, but here's a house built this year in West Cambourne. Note how they've used any colour of brick they could find on site. The house has since been rendered, but it's a sign of a really poor job and lack of care, and apparently it will reduce the render's lifetime due to differential heating of the differently-coloured bricks.
Wow - it feels like there should be something in building codes about that sort of thing.
One of the reasons the post-war concrete tower blocks failed is that they look ugly, so they aren't desirable to live in.
The places we live in should look beautiful.
It shouldn't take too much more effort to create some sort of pattern if you happen to have differently coloured bricks on site.
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
If you pile up regulations without enforcement, it will make things *worse*. Because cheating on the regulations, “to get things done” becomes endemic. And cheating saves tons of money - so bad behaviour is *rewarded*
Bad Drives Out Good.
In the construction industry, the telephone directory project plans are unread.
Meanwhile, buildings are built that are discovered to have substandard concrete. For example.
The Victorians knew the cure (ha!) for this - a sample of the concrete poured into a standard mould, cured and tested to prove quality. Circa 1870 or so.
What we need are simple, direct, easy to understand regulations with tons of actual enforcement.
Test cubes are still a very standard part of civil engineering, as are slump cones for immediate testing on-site. The problem with test cubes is that you only get the results weeks later; slump cones give an immediate comparison between concrete batches.
(I don't know about test cubes being used in house building; but I've seen a slump cone being washed out on a nearby site.)
Indeed
This methodology has existed for *centuries* - yet we have actual 15 story buildings with substandard concrete.
Another 10,000 pages of paper won’t stop the next Grenfell. What will stop it is enforcement of rules that are actually followed.
I've been wittering on about this on PB for (probably) as long as I've been on here. It's not as though I don't have a load of new-builds around me to study.
I may have posted this before, but here's a house built this year in West Cambourne. Note how they've used any colour of brick they could find on site. The house has since been rendered, but it's a sign of a really poor job and lack of care, and apparently it will reduce the render's lifetime due to differential heating of the differently-coloured bricks.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Ignoring asset values entirely hardly seems fair either, however. If you own your house, you’re not paying rent or a mortgage, which are big expenditures for many (usually younger) people. You can potentially realise the value, by downsizing or moving. Owning a £500k house is a lot better than not owning a £500k house! It’s not just sloganising.
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
If you pile up regulations without enforcement, it will make things *worse*. Because cheating on the regulations, “to get things done” becomes endemic. And cheating saves tons of money - so bad behaviour is *rewarded*
Bad Drives Out Good.
In the construction industry, the telephone directory project plans are unread.
Meanwhile, buildings are built that are discovered to have substandard concrete. For example.
The Victorians knew the cure (ha!) for this - a sample of the concrete poured into a standard mould, cured and tested to prove quality. Circa 1870 or so.
What we need are simple, direct, easy to understand regulations with tons of actual enforcement.
Test cubes are still a very standard part of civil engineering, as are slump cones for immediate testing on-site. The problem with test cubes is that you only get the results weeks later; slump cones give an immediate comparison between concrete batches.
(I don't know about test cubes being used in house building; but I've seen a slump cone being washed out on a nearby site.)
Indeed
This methodology has existed for *centuries* - yet we have actual 15 story buildings with substandard concrete.
Another 10,000 pages of paper won’t stop the next Grenfell. What will stop it is enforcement of rules that are actually followed.
I've been wittering on about this on PB for (probably) as long as I've been on here. It's not as though I don't have a load of new-builds around me to study.
I may have posted this before, but here's a house built this year in West Cambourne. Note how they've used any colour of brick they could find on site. The house has since been rendered, but it's a sign of a really poor job and lack of care, and apparently it will reduce the render's lifetime due to differential heating of the differently-coloured bricks.
Wow - it feels like there should be something in building codes about that sort of thing.
One of the reasons the post-war concrete tower blocks failed is that they look ugly, so they aren't desirable to live in.
The places we live in should look beautiful.
It shouldn't take too much more effort to create some sort of pattern if you happen to have differently coloured bricks on site.
When my dad was in building, he would order all the bricks for a house before construction, because even different firings of the 'same' bricks from the 'same' manufacturer could have noticeable differences. And if there were differences, he would randomise them as much as possible throughout the exterior, stippling them. In the example I showed, it's the vast differences in colours, and the obvious, visually-intrusive lines that make it look hideous.
Any spare bricks could be used for things like gateposts, minor walls, or drains and the like on other jobs.
I think the race is so close, as the first round shows, that no candidate has enough spare votes to allow their supporters to indulge in tactical voting. I suspect MPs are actually just voting for the candidate they prefer, but where's the story in that?
The race is so close as the first round shows, because there is nobody head and shoulders above the rest in a field of political pygmies.
Because your friend Boris got rid of many with talent and promoted on the basis of anti-talent, others walked away, and the electorate did the rest.
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
We had a lengthy, learned and comprehensive inquiry. If you’re just going to ignore its conclusions because they don’t fit your ideological prejudices, than why bother holding inquiries?
NONE of Britain's attack submarines are at sea: 'Utterly dire' state of the Royal Navy is laid bare in shocking figures - as US subs are 'called in to protect UK's "bomber" fleet'
Labour's only been in office two months and already Britain's emergency reserve power station fleet is laid up.
The Irish Naval Service is only managing an average of 7.6 patrol ship-days per week in 2024 up until the middle of July. Just slightly more than one ship at sea at any one time, with the fleet supposedly consisting of six ships at the beginning of the year. (Two more recently commissioned)
In Ireland's case the critical failing is a lack of sailors, particularly skilled engineers, who can get much better paying work elsewhere.
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.
He seems to have perfected the art of coming across as more sensible and decent than he likely is; which in politics isn’t a bad thing.
Josh Hull is apparently the first Leicestershire player to make his debut since Jonathan Agnew in 1984. That's surely the longest gap of any county. I wonder what the longest is now?
I like it but couldn't see anything in the article to back it up
It's been a traditional insult thrown at her for years, similarly to Brillo, from the left on social media mainly. To do with former membership?
It isn't really fair - Brillo (at his best) was an entertaining and robust interviewer who tended to try to explore an issue rather than score points; yes, he was significantly more "Labour-sceptical" than the median at the time, and is no doubt right of centre in his personal life (as indeed was Robin Oakley) but he was good at his job.
LauraK is poor at her job. The basis of the accusation that she is Tory-biased seems to be her local-newspaper-style "regurgitate the press release" approach to journalism. I don't think it goes much deeper than that.
Never bought she’s Tory biased. Reckon that’s just Corbynites bedwetters throwing mud.
But I do think there’s a marked improvement when Vic Derbyshire presents the show.
Josh Hull is apparently the first Leicestershire player to make his debut since Jonathan Agnew in 1984. That's surely the longest gap of any county. I wonder what the longest is now?
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.
It certainly doesn’t sound like I am missing an Indian summer? Indeed I believe the island has been under severe weather warning for the latter part of last week.
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 margins are important even though Labour always have a deficit with those voters . Just imagine the GE if Labour had announced this policy before the vote .
The Tories tying themselves to yet another pensioner-only policy stance is a political trap. They will only get visibility for a few issues in this parliament, and need to choose carefully.
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.
It certainly doesn’t sound like I am missing an Indian summer? Indeed I believe the island has been under severe weather warning for the latter part of last week.
NONE of Britain's attack submarines are at sea: 'Utterly dire' state of the Royal Navy is laid bare in shocking figures - as US subs are 'called in to protect UK's "bomber" fleet'
Labour's only been in office two months and already Britain's emergency reserve power station fleet is laid up.
The recent maiden speech from the new LibDem MP for TunbrIdge Wells - who served in Afghanistan - was good, if you get the chance to catch it.
From what I have seen, there is some real talent in the new expanded LibDem team - people with real life experience and achievements; they have dodged getting landed with a bunch of professional politicians, former lobbyists and SPADs, like the larger parties, because of course for LibDems those career paths don’t really exist.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Ignoring asset values entirely hardly seems fair either, however. If you own your house, you’re not paying rent or a mortgage, which are big expenditures for many (usually younger) people. You can potentially realise the value, by downsizing or moving. Owning a £500k house is a lot better than not owning a £500k house! It’s not just sloganising.
Indeed if people downsize they get a double bubble as a smaller place is cheaper to heat. A family house is then availible for a growing family.
Retired folk who don't feel the need to downsize are part of our housing problem.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Ignoring asset values entirely hardly seems fair either, however. If you own your house, you’re not paying rent or a mortgage, which are big expenditures for many (usually younger) people. You can potentially realise the value, by downsizing or moving. Owning a £500k house is a lot better than not owning a £500k house! It’s not just sloganising.
Fully agree, except that the 'millionaire' thing is a distorting slogan. Many pensioners are doing fine, and the WFA for most (including me) is just wrong. But the '25% are millionaires' stuff doesn't convey a true picture. It's as if I said '25% of people receiving UC are benefits junkies'.
It is hard not to agree that on the whole having a useful asset worth £500K is better than not having it. But I think we knew that.
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
If you pile up regulations without enforcement, it will make things *worse*. Because cheating on the regulations, “to get things done” becomes endemic. And cheating saves tons of money - so bad behaviour is *rewarded*
Bad Drives Out Good.
In the construction industry, the telephone directory project plans are unread.
Meanwhile, buildings are built that are discovered to have substandard concrete. For example.
The Victorians knew the cure (ha!) for this - a sample of the concrete poured into a standard mould, cured and tested to prove quality. Circa 1870 or so.
What we need are simple, direct, easy to understand regulations with tons of actual enforcement.
I think the problem here is, to achieve this, you would need to
1. Find a way of reversing the phenomena that as technology gets more complex, so do regulations. 2. Create a political environment where the solution to every issue is not legislation/new regulation.
By 2009 the civil service had internalised the view of no.2 - they were not creating new regulations unless as a 'last resort'. They had also set up a structure whereby new laws had to be justified by reference to impact assessments, so working out how they would be paid for.
Post Grenfell we are in a situation that is worse than 2009 ; regulations are published as the solution to every problem, no (or very minimal) impact assessments, and so consequently no method for them to be enforced or implemented.
I cannot see any answer this other than solutions based on AI, which will themselves be likely to be flawed.
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
We had a lengthy, learned and comprehensive inquiry. If you’re just going to ignore its conclusions because they don’t fit your ideological prejudices, than why bother holding inquiries?
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Every pensioner has an asset value of £200k as they get the state pension. That's a rough equivalent that would be needed to be saved to get the pension.
As a pendant, that is surely only this with full contributions.
Pensioner poverty is afaik skewed to former non-working spouses, though I do not have a handle on the real detail.
Worse to the wise: if you are going to be pedantic, don’t make silly mistakes.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Ignoring asset values entirely hardly seems fair either, however. If you own your house, you’re not paying rent or a mortgage, which are big expenditures for many (usually younger) people. You can potentially realise the value, by downsizing or moving. Owning a £500k house is a lot better than not owning a £500k house! It’s not just sloganising.
Fully agree, except that the 'millionaire' thing is a distorting slogan. Many pensioners are doing fine, and the WFA for most (including me) is just wrong. But the '25% are millionaires' stuff doesn't convey a true picture. It's as if I said '25% of people receiving UC are benefits junkies'.
It is hard not to agree that on the whole having a useful asset worth £500K is better than not having it. But I think we knew that.
The ‘problem’ isn’t at the 25th percentile, it’s at the 85th percentile.
Making something universal is often cheaper than the cost of means testing, with its associated form-filling and bureaucracy.
The easiest line for Labour to draw was the Pension Credit line, but that’s too low and is already an underclaimed benefit, so the change might actually end up saving almost nothing while upsetting millions sof not-rich pensioners.
My parents will be doing their bit to reduce their heating bills over the winter, they’ll be coming to visit me in the sandpit for a month. Their WFA always used to go to Emirates Airlines, but obviously they don’t ‘need’ it.
Those talking about ‘millionaires’ are trying to nudge people to make long-term decisions such as selling their house, on the basis of short-term energy price issues. FWIW the parents have played the housing market very well to have ‘downsized’ now three times, selling a £600k house for £400k each time!
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Ignoring asset values entirely hardly seems fair either, however. If you own your house, you’re not paying rent or a mortgage, which are big expenditures for many (usually younger) people. You can potentially realise the value, by downsizing or moving. Owning a £500k house is a lot better than not owning a £500k house! It’s not just sloganising.
Fully agree, except that the 'millionaire' thing is a distorting slogan. Many pensioners are doing fine, and the WFA for most (including me) is just wrong. But the '25% are millionaires' stuff doesn't convey a true picture. It's as if I said '25% of people receiving UC are benefits junkies'.
It is hard not to agree that on the whole having a useful asset worth £500K is better than not having it. But I think we knew that.
The ‘problem’ isn’t at the 25th percentile, it’s at the 85th percentile.
Making something universal is often cheaper than the cost of means testing, with its associated form-filling and bureaucracy.
The easiest line for Labour to draw was the Pension Credit line, but that’s too low and is already an underclaimed benefit, so the change might actually end up saving almost nothing while upsetting millions sof not-rich pensioners.
My parents will be doing their bit to reduce their heating bills over the winter, they’ll be coming to visit me in the sandpit for a month. Their WFA always used to go to Emirates Airlines, but obviously they don’t ‘need’ it.
Those talking about ‘millionaires’ are trying to nudge people to make long-term decisions such as selling their house, on the basis of short-term energy price issues. FWIW the parents have played the housing market very well to have ‘downsized’ now three times, selling a £600k house for £400k each time!
Spending the same amount of cash but focusing it more closely on those who really need it is not necessarily a bad thing.
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
We had a lengthy, learned and comprehensive inquiry. If you’re just going to ignore its conclusions because they don’t fit your ideological prejudices, than why bother holding inquiries?
As Yes Minister pointed out, the reason to hold an inquiry is to reach the conclusion that the Government wants. It is not intended to be a search for objective truth.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Ignoring asset values entirely hardly seems fair either, however. If you own your house, you’re not paying rent or a mortgage, which are big expenditures for many (usually younger) people. You can potentially realise the value, by downsizing or moving. Owning a £500k house is a lot better than not owning a £500k house! It’s not just sloganising.
Fully agree, except that the 'millionaire' thing is a distorting slogan. Many pensioners are doing fine, and the WFA for most (including me) is just wrong. But the '25% are millionaires' stuff doesn't convey a true picture. It's as if I said '25% of people receiving UC are benefits junkies'.
It is hard not to agree that on the whole having a useful asset worth £500K is better than not having it. But I think we knew that.
The ‘problem’ isn’t at the 25th percentile, it’s at the 85th percentile.
Making something universal is often cheaper than the cost of means testing, with its associated form-filling and bureaucracy.
The easiest line for Labour to draw was the Pension Credit line, but that’s too low and is already an underclaimed benefit, so the change might actually end up saving almost nothing while upsetting millions sof not-rich pensioners.
My parents will be doing their bit to reduce their heating bills over the winter, they’ll be coming to visit me in the sandpit for a month. Their WFA always used to go to Emirates Airlines, but obviously they don’t ‘need’ it.
Those talking about ‘millionaires’ are trying to nudge people to make long-term decisions such as selling their house, on the basis of short-term energy price issues. FWIW the parents have played the housing market very well to have ‘downsized’ now three times, selling a £600k house for £400k each time!
Spending the same amount of cash but focusing it more closely on those who really need it is not necessarily a bad thing.
No. Instead of giving the same amount to everyone, they’re giving that same amount to only 10% or 20%, and spending the rest on bureaucracy and admin.
Great for the bureaucrats and administrators, not good for those who were deemed just ‘rich’ enough not to be given the benefit.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Ignoring asset values entirely hardly seems fair either, however. If you own your house, you’re not paying rent or a mortgage, which are big expenditures for many (usually younger) people. You can potentially realise the value, by downsizing or moving. Owning a £500k house is a lot better than not owning a £500k house! It’s not just sloganising.
Fully agree, except that the 'millionaire' thing is a distorting slogan. Many pensioners are doing fine, and the WFA for most (including me) is just wrong. But the '25% are millionaires' stuff doesn't convey a true picture. It's as if I said '25% of people receiving UC are benefits junkies'.
It is hard not to agree that on the whole having a useful asset worth £500K is better than not having it. But I think we knew that.
The ‘problem’ isn’t at the 25th percentile, it’s at the 85th percentile.
Making something universal is often cheaper than the cost of means testing, with its associated form-filling and bureaucracy.
The easiest line for Labour to draw was the Pension Credit line, but that’s too low and is already an underclaimed benefit, so the change might actually end up saving almost nothing while upsetting millions sof not-rich pensioners.
My parents will be doing their bit to reduce their heating bills over the winter, they’ll be coming to visit me in the sandpit for a month. Their WFA always used to go to Emirates Airlines, but obviously they don’t ‘need’ it.
Those talking about ‘millionaires’ are trying to nudge people to make long-term decisions such as selling their house, on the basis of short-term energy price issues. FWIW the parents have played the housing market very well to have ‘downsized’ now three times, selling a £600k house for £400k each time!
Spending the same amount of cash but focusing it more closely on those who really need it is not necessarily a bad thing.
Persuading more people to claim Pension Credit if they're entitled to it isn't either.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Ignoring asset values entirely hardly seems fair either, however. If you own your house, you’re not paying rent or a mortgage, which are big expenditures for many (usually younger) people. You can potentially realise the value, by downsizing or moving. Owning a £500k house is a lot better than not owning a £500k house! It’s not just sloganising.
Fully agree, except that the 'millionaire' thing is a distorting slogan. Many pensioners are doing fine, and the WFA for most (including me) is just wrong. But the '25% are millionaires' stuff doesn't convey a true picture. It's as if I said '25% of people receiving UC are benefits junkies'.
It is hard not to agree that on the whole having a useful asset worth £500K is better than not having it. But I think we knew that.
The ‘problem’ isn’t at the 25th percentile, it’s at the 85th percentile.
Making something universal is often cheaper than the cost of means testing, with its associated form-filling and bureaucracy.
The easiest line for Labour to draw was the Pension Credit line, but that’s too low and is already an underclaimed benefit, so the change might actually end up saving almost nothing while upsetting millions sof not-rich pensioners.
My parents will be doing their bit to reduce their heating bills over the winter, they’ll be coming to visit me in the sandpit for a month. Their WFA always used to go to Emirates Airlines, but obviously they don’t ‘need’ it.
Those talking about ‘millionaires’ are trying to nudge people to make long-term decisions such as selling their house, on the basis of short-term energy price issues. FWIW the parents have played the housing market very well to have ‘downsized’ now three times, selling a £600k house for £400k each time!
Spending the same amount of cash but focusing it more closely on those who really need it is not necessarily a bad thing.
No. Instead of giving the same amount to everyone, they’re giving that same amount to only 10% or 20%, and spending the rest on bureaucracy and admin.
It's a piggy back benefit. Almost no admin costs.
What might be expensive is processing all the new pension credit claimants. But given that those people have always been eligible to it, we can hardly complain.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Ignoring asset values entirely hardly seems fair either, however. If you own your house, you’re not paying rent or a mortgage, which are big expenditures for many (usually younger) people. You can potentially realise the value, by downsizing or moving. Owning a £500k house is a lot better than not owning a £500k house! It’s not just sloganising.
Fully agree, except that the 'millionaire' thing is a distorting slogan. Many pensioners are doing fine, and the WFA for most (including me) is just wrong. But the '25% are millionaires' stuff doesn't convey a true picture. It's as if I said '25% of people receiving UC are benefits junkies'.
It is hard not to agree that on the whole having a useful asset worth £500K is better than not having it. But I think we knew that.
The ‘problem’ isn’t at the 25th percentile, it’s at the 85th percentile.
Making something universal is often cheaper than the cost of means testing, with its associated form-filling and bureaucracy.
The easiest line for Labour to draw was the Pension Credit line, but that’s too low and is already an underclaimed benefit, so the change might actually end up saving almost nothing while upsetting millions sof not-rich pensioners.
My parents will be doing their bit to reduce their heating bills over the winter, they’ll be coming to visit me in the sandpit for a month. Their WFA always used to go to Emirates Airlines, but obviously they don’t ‘need’ it.
Those talking about ‘millionaires’ are trying to nudge people to make long-term decisions such as selling their house, on the basis of short-term energy price issues. FWIW the parents have played the housing market very well to have ‘downsized’ now three times, selling a £600k house for £400k each time!
Spending the same amount of cash but focusing it more closely on those who really need it is not necessarily a bad thing.
No. Instead of giving the same amount to everyone, they’re giving that same amount to only 10% or 20%, and spending the rest on bureaucracy and admin.
It's a piggy back benefit. Almost no admin costs.
What might be expensive is processing all the new pension credit claimants. But given that those people have always been eligible to it, we can hardly complain.
They drew the line where they did to try and minimise the admin, but have as a result upset a load of those on average incomes just the wrong side of the line, and encouraged more pensioners and their families to claim a benefit which they haven’t up until now.
Dropping off my eldest for her first day at St Andrew’s Uni
Scary moment for a shy, bright girl Poignant moment for a proud, pensive father
18 years!! Where did it go
Congratulations, Sir!
Best of luck to your daughter, on the first day of the rest of her life.
Thankyou!
She could have easily got into Oxbridge if she’d desired. She’s very clever and scholarly
And I really wish she’d done it - not for the prestige (St Andrew’s is fairly prestigious) - but because she wouldn’t be 800 billion miles and 12 long hours away,,,
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
We had a lengthy, learned and comprehensive inquiry. If you’re just going to ignore its conclusions because they don’t fit your ideological prejudices, than why bother holding inquiries?
Enquiries are awesome.
1) They prevent any action occurring during the time they are held 2) They provide a handy excuse for nothing being done until the end of the enquiry. 3) They make sure that enough time has past to blur the evidence, making prosecutions much harder. 4) They give more time for the guilty to move to new jobs. 5) They can go on long enough that a significant number of the victims die or move on with their lives, rather than actually getting justice. 6) They provide employment for a whole industry of the Right Kind Of People.
There’s really no end to the usefulness of enquiries for those in power. The victims should shut up and feel grateful.
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
The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
Ignoring asset values entirely hardly seems fair either, however. If you own your house, you’re not paying rent or a mortgage, which are big expenditures for many (usually younger) people. You can potentially realise the value, by downsizing or moving. Owning a £500k house is a lot better than not owning a £500k house! It’s not just sloganising.
Fully agree, except that the 'millionaire' thing is a distorting slogan. Many pensioners are doing fine, and the WFA for most (including me) is just wrong. But the '25% are millionaires' stuff doesn't convey a true picture. It's as if I said '25% of people receiving UC are benefits junkies'.
It is hard not to agree that on the whole having a useful asset worth £500K is better than not having it. But I think we knew that.
The ‘problem’ isn’t at the 25th percentile, it’s at the 85th percentile.
Making something universal is often cheaper than the cost of means testing, with its associated form-filling and bureaucracy.
The easiest line for Labour to draw was the Pension Credit line, but that’s too low and is already an underclaimed benefit, so the change might actually end up saving almost nothing while upsetting millions sof not-rich pensioners.
My parents will be doing their bit to reduce their heating bills over the winter, they’ll be coming to visit me in the sandpit for a month. Their WFA always used to go to Emirates Airlines, but obviously they don’t ‘need’ it.
Those talking about ‘millionaires’ are trying to nudge people to make long-term decisions such as selling their house, on the basis of short-term energy price issues. FWIW the parents have played the housing market very well to have ‘downsized’ now three times, selling a £600k house for £400k each time!
Spending the same amount of cash but focusing it more closely on those who really need it is not necessarily a bad thing.
No. Instead of giving the same amount to everyone, they’re giving that same amount to only 10% or 20%, and spending the rest on bureaucracy and admin.
It's a piggy back benefit. Almost no admin costs.
What might be expensive is processing all the new pension credit claimants. But given that those people have always been eligible to it, we can hardly complain.
"Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?"
The evidence is the postbags of Labour MPs. They are seriously concerned at this move.
Dropping off my eldest for her first day at St Andrew’s Uni
Scary moment for a shy, bright girl Poignant moment for a proud, pensive father
18 years!! Where did it go
Congratulations, Sir!
Best of luck to your daughter, on the first day of the rest of her life.
Thankyou!
She could have easily got into Oxbridge if she’d desired. She’s very clever and scholarly
And I really wish she’d done it - not for the prestige (St Andrew’s is fairly prestigious) - but because she wouldn’t be 800 billion miles and 12 long hours away,,,
Mate, you travel all over the world eating, drinking and stopping in hotels for,your job.
Surely St Andrews is a mere hop and a step compared to what you’re used to ?
Dropping off my eldest for her first day at St Andrew’s Uni
Scary moment for a shy, bright girl Poignant moment for a proud, pensive father
18 years!! Where did it go
Congratulations, Sir!
Best of luck to your daughter, on the first day of the rest of her life.
Thankyou!
She could have easily got into Oxbridge if she’d desired. She’s very clever and scholarly
And I really wish she’d done it - not for the prestige (St Andrew’s is fairly prestigious) - but because she wouldn’t be 800 billion miles and 12 long hours away,,,
Mate, you travel all over the world eating, drinking and stopping in hotels for,your job.
Surely St Andrews is a mere hop and a step compared to what you’re used to ?
True. Its not so much me it’s more her mother
Tho maybe the huge distance was perceived by my daughter as a positive. They don’t ALWAYS get on…
I have been following the commentary on the Grenfell report with interest. The consensus of the discussion seems to be that the architect is being blamed, notably though, the firm in question are in liquidation so did not have any legal advice or representation at the Inquiry, which may have contributed to the outcome. It will be interesting how this works with the criminal prosecution, they had immunity from prosecution in the Inquiry, but everyone can watch the testimony of the likely defendents in the Inquiry because they are posted online for mass consumption and clickbait style editing, presumably forever.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
We had a lengthy, learned and comprehensive inquiry. If you’re just going to ignore its conclusions because they don’t fit your ideological prejudices, than why bother holding inquiries?
Who is ignoring the conclusions of the report?
I am quietly confident that the interaction of the new regulations and reality will actually make things *less* safe
{SS Eastland has entered the chat and rolled over. Due to the weight of extra lifeboats}
Dropping off my eldest for her first day at St Andrew’s Uni
Scary moment for a shy, bright girl Poignant moment for a proud, pensive father
18 years!! Where did it go
Congratulations, Sir!
Best of luck to your daughter, on the first day of the rest of her life.
Thankyou!
She could have easily got into Oxbridge if she’d desired. She’s very clever and scholarly
And I really wish she’d done it - not for the prestige (St Andrew’s is fairly prestigious) - but because she wouldn’t be 800 billion miles and 12 long hours away,,,
Mate, you travel all over the world eating, drinking and stopping in hotels for,your job.
Surely St Andrews is a mere hop and a step compared to what you’re used to ?
Can a Spectator article from a wet weekend on St Kilda be far behind?
Comments
https://www.govtech.com/em/emergency-blogs/disaster-zone/navy-ships-providing-electrical-power-to-cities-post-disaster
British (conventional) aircraft carriers used to be able to provide shore power for emergencies; I've no idea if the new QE class can.
Alternatively it might just be that Badenoch isn't very good.
I can't see it myself.
(And yes, you can ask the same question of the others.)
It makes sense in a way, given how Russia was keeping their hulks (poorly), and how little they care for the environment.
So far only two batsmen have got to grips with the pitch - Duckett and Pope. Let's hope the Sri Lanka's can't even find one.
We need to remember that the Co-op is a Federation of (many local or regional) organisations, not just one.
I'm still ruminating on what can be done about my local Co-op that withdrew 1/3 of its lines a few days ago, with the staff blaming systematic shop-lifting - youths walking in several times a day, filling a bag, and walking out again. But the staff stay for years and always seem happy. This is not a poor area, but the Co-op is easily accessible as it is on the former A38 within 3 minutes of the edge of town. Decades ago we had some problems with mobile burglars driving in down the motorway from Liverpool who went for the same area.
The underlying issue seems to me to be the Notts Constabulary being a little slopey shouldered with respect to some crime and ASB. This is the response they are giving to I think Lee Anderson about motorbike ASB in one or two areas of the town (quoted on his Facebook group). They already have all sorts of powers for addressing motorcycle ASB:
In the second test of the 1990/91 Ashes England went from 147/4 to 150 all out, thank heavens for the gritty single from Devon Malcolm.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-australia-1990-91-61737/australia-vs-england-2nd-test-63544/full-scorecard
"At the end of the day, Clarence Thomas is just the Tim Pool of the Supreme Court."
https://x.com/jeffjarvis/status/1831861036124926117
Andrew Flintoff has been appointed head coach of the England Lions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/cvg5ynj1487o
1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual
2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.
3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income
4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.
I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.
But what the report seems to be saying is that - we created one set of unworkable and failed processes that led to failed outcomes, we mistakenly thought the answer was deregulation; and so now it is clear that the answer is more processes, more regulatory bodies, revised thresholds, new duties. And you must agree, because to do otherwise, is to be careless about safety; and it was this that caused the problem in the first place.
It is hard to be really confident that this would prevent the same thing from happening again, because the fundamental problem is that all these processes we are creating either fail to work at all, contradict other processes, or have no resources to be successfully enacted. This is not to make a comment on the report or my own position on it; it just seems to be a perfect example of how the 'process state' perpetuates itself. @Malmesbury
Father knew Lloyd George
Lloyd George knew my father
Father knew Lloyd George
Remarkably, that is true in JRM's case, whose first job with Hong Kong-based fund managers LGM Management was arranged between his father, William Rees-Mogg, and the eponymous Robert Lloyd George (great-grandson).
I thank Badenoch is likely toast. All the other candidates will want to knock her out so she needed a higher starting point to be able to avoid being a victim of tactical voting.
I think it highlights the importance of "clubbability" - it feels like however talented she may be, a lot of Tory MPs simply don't like Badenoch for whatever reason.
Only nine out of 25 warships and attack submarines are active or deployed
The rest of the fleet has broken down, is being modified or undergoing trials
HMS Bulwark and destroyer HMS Daring have been inactive for seven years
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13822829/none-britains-submarines-sea-dire-state-royal-navy.html
Labour's only been in office two months and already Britain's emergency reserve power station fleet is laid up.
IIRC it supported Cromwell in the Civil War ....
Royalist to its core. Doesn't sit well with me as I am very much on the Parliamentarian side in that particlar scrap.
Pensioner poverty is afaik skewed to former non-working spouses, though I do not have a handle on the real detail.
Bad Drives Out Good.
In the construction industry, the telephone directory project plans are unread.
Meanwhile, buildings are built that are discovered to have substandard concrete. For example.
The Victorians knew the cure (ha!) for this - a sample of the concrete poured into a standard mould, cured and tested to prove quality. Circa 1870 or so.
What we need are simple, direct, easy to understand regulations with tons of actual enforcement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hutchinson_(Roundhead)
* Like Ed Balls, Ed Davey and Geoff Hoon, a High School boy.
Why I Still Think Trump Will Win
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/06/opinion/trump-victory.html
https://www.concrete.org.uk/fingertips-document.asp?id=559
(I don't know about test cubes being used in house building; but I've seen a slump cone being washed out on a nearby site.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Response
As I was looking into that, I came across the following:
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/s/sampling-of-us-naval-humanitarian-operations.html
LauraK is poor at her job. The basis of the accusation that she is Tory-biased seems to be her local-newspaper-style "regurgitate the press release" approach to journalism. I don't think it goes much deeper than that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4ywg2xzv5o
This methodology has existed for *centuries* - yet we have actual 15 story buildings with substandard concrete.
Another 10,000 pages of paper won’t stop the next Grenfell. What will stop it is enforcement of rules that are actually followed.
It was a lot worse before recent interest rate rises and will get worse when they return back down.
And that’s at current slightly higher annuity
rates, and probably assuming no inflation.
Because carriers have
1) huge hospital capacity
2) tons of helicopters
3) tons of fuel and maintenance facilities for helicopters.
4) water distilling capability - if flight operations are suspended, the capacity to make water is enough for 10 of thousands of people, IIRC
5) if a bunch of the combat aircraft are flown off to land bases - huge amounts of space to organise stuff/use for logistics.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240906200705/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/06/opinion/trump-victory.html
I may have posted this before, but here's a house built this year in West Cambourne. Note how they've used any colour of brick they could find on site. The house has since been rendered, but it's a sign of a really poor job and lack of care, and apparently it will reduce the render's lifetime due to differential heating of the differently-coloured bricks.
It really was excellent and he really is a remarkable man .
I mean, it's not *structural*; but it means you could never take the render off, if you wanted, and it's such a sign of lack of care that you wonder what else they don't care about.
As I've said many times passim: any house being built needs an 'owner' / 'client'; someone who will tell the builders they're being stoopid or making a mistake; someone to watch over them. And local councils' building departments are nto doing it.
The places we live in should look beautiful.
It shouldn't take too much more effort to create some sort of pattern if you happen to have differently coloured bricks on site.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6AKNopFWx25Am6s18
Any spare bricks could be used for things like gateposts, minor walls, or drains and the like on other jobs.
In Ireland's case the critical failing is a lack of sailors, particularly skilled engineers, who can get much better paying work elsewhere.
But I do think there’s a marked improvement when Vic Derbyshire presents the show.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Taylor_(cricketer)
in 1985.
I'm sure there will be others.
Edit: There are:
Aftab Habib and Darren Maddy in 1999 to start with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicestershire_County_Cricket_Club#International_players
I'm intrigued.
How does that happen?
From what I have seen, there is some real talent in the new expanded LibDem team - people with real life experience and achievements; they have dodged getting landed with a bunch of professional politicians, former lobbyists and SPADs, like the larger parties, because of course for LibDems those career paths don’t really exist.
Retired folk who don't feel the need to downsize are part of our housing problem.
It is hard not to agree that on the whole having a useful asset worth £500K is better than not having it. But I think we knew that.
1. Find a way of reversing the phenomena that as technology gets more complex, so do regulations.
2. Create a political environment where the solution to every issue is not legislation/new regulation.
By 2009 the civil service had internalised the view of no.2 - they were not creating new regulations unless as a 'last resort'. They had also set up a structure whereby new laws had to be justified by reference to impact assessments, so working out how they would be paid for.
Post Grenfell we are in a situation that is worse than 2009 ; regulations are published as the solution to every problem, no (or very minimal) impact assessments, and so consequently no method for them to be enforced or implemented.
I cannot see any answer this other than solutions based on AI, which will themselves be likely to be flawed.
Otherwise you’ll be hung from the neck
Making something universal is often cheaper than the cost of means testing, with its associated form-filling and bureaucracy.
The easiest line for Labour to draw was the Pension Credit line, but that’s too low and is already an underclaimed benefit, so the change might actually end up saving almost nothing while upsetting millions sof not-rich pensioners.
My parents will be doing their bit to reduce their heating bills over the winter, they’ll be coming to visit me in the sandpit for a month. Their WFA always used to go to Emirates Airlines, but obviously they don’t ‘need’ it.
Those talking about ‘millionaires’ are trying to nudge people to make long-term decisions such as selling their house, on the basis of short-term energy price issues. FWIW the parents have played the housing market very well to have ‘downsized’ now three times, selling a £600k house for £400k each time!
Great for the bureaucrats and administrators, not good for those who were deemed just ‘rich’ enough not to be given the benefit.
What might be expensive is processing all the new pension credit claimants. But given that those people have always been eligible to it, we can hardly complain.
Scary moment for a shy, bright girl
Poignant moment for a proud, pensive father
18 years!! Where did it go
Best of luck to your daughter, on the first day of the rest of her life.
She could have easily got into Oxbridge if she’d desired. She’s very clever and scholarly
And I really wish she’d done it - not for the prestige (St Andrew’s is fairly prestigious) - but because she wouldn’t be 800 billion miles and 12 long hours away,,,
1) They prevent any action occurring during the time they are held
2) They provide a handy excuse for nothing being done until the end of the enquiry.
3) They make sure that enough time has past to blur the evidence, making prosecutions much harder.
4) They give more time for the guilty to move to new jobs.
5) They can go on long enough that a significant number of the victims die or move on with their lives, rather than actually getting justice.
6) They provide employment for a whole industry of the Right Kind Of People.
There’s really no end to the usefulness of enquiries for those in power. The victims should shut up and feel grateful.
Lots of quietly weeping mothers saying goodbye…
The evidence is the postbags of Labour MPs. They are seriously concerned at this move.
Surely St Andrews is a mere hop and a step compared to what you’re used to ?
Tho maybe the huge distance was perceived by my daughter as a positive. They don’t ALWAYS get on…
{SS Eastland has entered the chat and rolled over. Due to the weight of extra lifeboats}