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.
Do you really think the government wants the conclusions of enquiries like the Post Office? Grenfell? Contaminated blood scandal, Covid enquirey etc?
“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:
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?
An article on the benefits of helicopter travel for those Londoners with children at remote Scottish universities, sponsored by an helicopter charter company.
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.
They're not spending the rest on bureaucracy and admin. They're using an existing cut-off, so there should be almost no additional admin. The rest is being used to reduce borrowing.
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?
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.
The Grenfell inquiry has been damning of multiple participants and provided evidence for prosecutions, so your critique seems misplaced.
“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:
“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:
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?
An article on the benefits of helicopter travel for those Londoners with children at remote Scottish universities, sponsored by an helicopter charter company.
Much needed I am sure, for all those people unfortunate enough to live far from Scotland (which is visible from my English vantage point).
More to the point, The 2025 Guardian University Guide published today (none of these are all that great but they are not useless) has no fewer than 5 Scottish universities in the UK top 17. (That's 29%). By contrast Scotland has 8% of the total UK population.
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?
Move fast. Not easy to get to from October to April. Only get stuck there if you like eating seagull.
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?
An article on the benefits of helicopter travel for those Londoners with children at remote Scottish universities, sponsored by an helicopter charter company.
Much needed I am sure, for all those people unfortunate enough to live far from Scotland (which is visible from my English vantage point).
More to the point, The 2025 Guardian University Guide published today (none of these are all that great but they are not useless) has no fewer than 5 Scottish universities in the UK top 17. (That's 29%). By contrast Scotland has 8% of the total UK population.
18 year olds do well to consider going north.
Lots of Americans here - obvs - dropping their precious kids
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.
Scotland (and to an extent Wales) have been showing they way. Though TBF the Scot Gov have just withdrawn a some way on the 10% of transport spend to active travel spend the Greens made them do - I'm not sure of details. Wales has been doing more on eg the legal framework around access.
The new UK Govt are making reasonable noises about what is coming, especially around budgets being long-term settlements. Previously there was the weird thing that the Highawyas Authority for England Roads budget would be fixed at the srart of a 5 year period, and the cycling elements wsa wrangled about for a further 2.5 years, so there was no time to spend except in a huge rush because they don't use all their powers for that (eg CPO) unlike roads.
It's still a chaotic mess, but shows signs of getting sorted and tidied up, and consistency coming in.
Whilst you are here, I would really recommend Laura Laker's book Potholes and Pavements, which covers EWS; the only bits missed are Eastern England and my neck of the woods. I've listened to the audiobook on audible.com and it is great, Lots of Scotland, and lots of history of how it has been developed, plus much about policy.
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.
7) The time between start and finish of the enquiry is sufficient to ensure that the media lose interest in the subject.
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.
Do you really think the government wants the conclusions of enquiries like the Post Office? Grenfell? Contaminated blood scandal, Covid enquirey etc?
Yes Minister was a sit com, not a documentary.
It is political management, IE have an Inquiry that drags on for 10 years, punt every difficult question in to it, until the problem hopefully goes away. It becomes an industry.
What is of concern is the problem I raised at the start of the thread. It purports to be a 'truth seeking' exercise but the lines are rather blurred with criminal investigations. It is in your interest to have your own legal representation, which some companies can pay for; and others have none, like the architect in the Grenfell case, putting them at a fatal disadvantage.
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
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.
7) The time between start and finish of the enquiry is sufficient to ensure that the media lose interest in the subject.
8 ) The time between the start and end of the enquiry is sufficient to ensure that everyone who might get critisised has managed to move on in their career, mostly working for another public sector entity at a much higher salary. #NU10K
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'
Tri-Cities Herald (via Seattle Times) - Moderate Republicans may have courted MAGA voters to save [Republican Congressman Dan] Newhouse
[note that Tri-Cities in this context, refers to eastern WA cities of Kennewick, Pasco & Richland in WA CD04]
A PAC aligned with Republican incumbent Dan Newhouse reportedly spent $35,000 on a text messaging campaign in Central Washington to promote a challenger they believed he will beat in the general election.
A story this week by Politico says the campaign sent tens of thousands of text messages to the biggest supporters of former President Donald Trump in the days leading up to the Aug. 6 primary election.
Those messages focused on promoting Republican challenger Jerrod Sessler as Trump’s preferred candidate, overshadowing another challenger, Tiffany Smiley, also a Republican, in the primary.
Smiley received the former president’s endorsement 72 hours before ballot drop boxes closed, obfuscating a clear, single choice for MAGA-aligned voters in the final hours of the race for Washington’s 4th Congressional District.
“Tiffany would have been a problem for Dan,” Sarah Chamberlain, CEO and president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, told Politico. “We had 35,000 MAGA [voters] that we knew were hardcore Trumpers. And we had all their contacts, so we just kept texting.”
Chamberlain argued Sessler would be the easier opponent for Newhouse to defeat in the 2024 general election. Smiley had previously taken more moderate stances on issues during her failed 2022 run for U.S. Senate, and her presence in the general election would have threatened the broader coalition of voters that Newhouse needs to win a sixth term in Congress.
SSI - Personally disagree with that Tiffany Smiley would have "threatened" incubent Dan Newhouse any more than Jerrod Selser. Seeing as how:
> Smiley is as much a MAGA-maniac as Selzer, with her allegedly "moderate stances" in 2022 somewhat less than that.
> Newhouse got elected to US House in first place (and has mostly stayed there the same way) by running against another GOPer in the general election, after both were top vote-getters in WA's "Top Two" primary; in all such cases Newhouse beat a wack-job right-winger, with the support of Democratic voters in the absence of a Democratic option on the fall ballot.
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.
The Grenfell inquiry has been damning of multiple participants and provided evidence for prosecutions, so your critique seems misplaced.
The interesting bit will be what actual action is taken against actual people and actual companies.
There’s a long, long tradition of
“Well, his company sold ships. The front fell off most of them and crews drowned.
The ship yard is awfully sorry, the chap who bought the ships has retired. The government inspectorate who failed to notice the ships lacked attachments for the bows had beautiful paperwork.
So we arrested Fred Muggle, third deputy welding rod holder on a charge of Aggravated Being Left Holding The Bag. But he was found not guilty after a trial.
So after the enquiry and the trial 20 years have passed. Too late to do anything.
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.
This country is becoming a sick joke.
Nah, it's still a great country.
This country - in fact, any country - have always had problems. It's just that the Internet and modern communications/media allows us to see everything that is going on, if we want. And we only ever hear the bad stories, not the much more frequent times when things go right.
This is made worse by people actively wanting to highlight the bad things, for whatever reason.
That does not mean we need to be complacent; far from. But sometimes it's good to step back and be thankful for the things that do just work (tm).
Things can, and often do, change for the better. As an example, the Loscoe explosion in 1986 has led to a massive change in the way waste tips are managed. But we don't get to hear about the explosions that do not occur because now things are done properly. The later Gorebridge incident (slightly different) was dealt with fairly promptly.
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.
7) The time between start and finish of the enquiry is sufficient to ensure that the media lose interest in the subject.
8 ) The time between the start and end of the enquiry is sufficient to ensure that everyone who might get critisised has managed to move on in their career, mostly working for another public sector entity at a much higher salary. #NU10K
No
“everyone”…. above the Magic Level. The Magic Level being that where failure is transubstantiated into career improvement.
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.
7) The time between start and finish of the enquiry is sufficient to ensure that the media lose interest in the subject.
8 ) The time between the start and end of the enquiry is sufficient to ensure that everyone who might get critisised has managed to move on in their career, mostly working for another public sector entity at a much higher salary. #NU10K
This may be something we should learn from the Yanks. They often go after perps for the really long-term, though Satutes of Limitations circumscribe it.
Normally the final 2 in a Conservative party leadership election are a rightwinger and a One Nation liberal so hard to see both Badenoch and Jenrick getting to the final 2 as they are both in the latter category. So it may well have made sense for Jenrick to lend a few votes to Cleverly to ensure Badenoch is closer to him than Jenrick while Jenrick has the rightwinger spot sown up.
Meanwhile Cleverly and whoever is not eliminated next week out of Tugendhat or Stride will compete for the One Nation Liberal spot, though the latter 2 are probably closer to it than the former. Patel's camp also suggested some tactical votes from Badenoch and Cleverly to Stride to knock her out last week
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.
There's nothing wrong with "drive here and walk around". That's exactly what most people want to do at NT properties.
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.
Do you really think the government wants the conclusions of enquiries like the Post Office? Grenfell? Contaminated blood scandal, Covid enquirey etc?
Yes Minister was a sit com, not a documentary.
It is political management, IE have an Inquiry that drags on for 10 years, punt every difficult question in to it, until the problem hopefully goes away. It becomes an industry.
What is of concern is the problem I raised at the start of the thread. It purports to be a 'truth seeking' exercise but the lines are rather blurred with criminal investigations. It is in your interest to have your own legal representation, which some companies can pay for; and others have none, like the architect in the Grenfell case, putting them at a fatal disadvantage.
You also forget the neat trick. Legal council is provided by the organisations under fire for those giving evidence. So, do you drop the people providing your high priced lawyers in the poo? Or do you go with the flow?
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.
This country is becoming a sick joke.
AFAIK that's basically the same as all the Stucco houses in Knightsbridge. You render over to cover the mess of the build.
"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."
The whole conservative leadership race is a complete switch off for me
Just elect a leader and get on with it
Just elect a leader and get on with realising they are very poor and then get on with replacing them...
If Robert Jenrick is elected, the 'them' being replaced will be the party as a whole, and the replacers will be the Liberal Democrats.
Rubbish, the LDs are already down to just 11% on the latest poll, well behind Reform on 19% in a clear 3rd with the Tories up to 26% just 4% behind Labour on 30%.
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.
There's nothing wrong with "drive here and walk around". That's exactly what most people want to do at NT properties.
There's nothing wrong with that.
However it is problematic when everyone who cannot do that is excluded for no good reason. It is also problematic when it contributes to poor health etc.
I have multiple *walking* trails in my area where the only real way to get there is to drive, because they are not linked together. That is self-satirical to the point of absurdity. 25% of adults do not have a driving licence.
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?
An article on the benefits of helicopter travel for those Londoners with children at remote Scottish universities, sponsored by an helicopter charter company.
Much needed I am sure, for all those people unfortunate enough to live far from Scotland (which is visible from my English vantage point).
More to the point, The 2025 Guardian University Guide published today (none of these are all that great but they are not useless) has no fewer than 5 Scottish universities in the UK top 17. (That's 29%). By contrast Scotland has 8% of the total UK population.
18 year olds do well to consider going north.
Lots of Americans here - obvs - dropping their precious kids
The whole conservative leadership race is a complete switch off for me
Just elect a leader and get on with it
Just elect a leader and get on with realising they are very poor and then get on with replacing them...
If Robert Jenrick is elected, the 'them' being replaced will be the party as a whole, and the replacers will be the Liberal Democrats.
Rubbish, the LDs are already down to just 11% on the latest poll, well behind Reform on 19% in a clear 3rd with the Tories up to 26% just 4% behind Labour on 30%.
Rubbish, Reform are completely hopeless at winning seats, whatever the headline polling numbers. They're a one-man ego trip led by a refugee from an A A Milne play, not a political party.
The whole conservative leadership race is a complete switch off for me
Just elect a leader and get on with it
Just elect a leader and get on with realising they are very poor and then get on with replacing them...
If Robert Jenrick is elected, the 'them' being replaced will be the party as a whole, and the replacers will be the Liberal Democrats.
Nah, they will cycle through until they find a leader that has an effective voice and presence. But they aren't on that list offered up this time.
Maybe.
Cleverly is probably the best option on the menu- though Patel might have been able to do the Michael Howard thing. But the succession planning has been awful, mostly because the Conservatives have burnt through a couple of generations of potential talent in the last five years.
And yes, there probably is another effective Conservative leader out there, they just don't know it yet. Heck, they might not even be an MP yet. Whether there will be a meaningful Conservative party from them to lead is another matter. There should be, but it won't take that much bad luck/judgement for a tumble in third party irrelevance.
I hope that the Conservative Party can restore itself to sanity and good health. The country benefits from all decent parties being decent.
Of the remaining candidates I look at Stride and remember the guy grifting away during the election campaign, literally delivering the most absurd laughable spin lines and trying to insist he and they were serious. Sorry mate, no. Tugenhat seems to have grafted away in the background out of view, had a good reputation but has soiled himself prostrate before the membership. No.
That leaves Jenrick, Badenoch and Cleverley. The latter is the least worst option by a considerable distance. Still a toad, but not as reprehensible a toad as Jenrick is. And Badenoch? As prickly as Truss without the talent.
If they go for the wrong leader, we'll have another leadership contest before the next election. Probably. Unless they are so mad that they leave Jenrick in place despite the obvious drawbacks.
At the start line Patel seemed to me to be the most credible candidate (if one conveniently ignores her back story).
Maybe like Starmer for Labour in 2020 the next leader is the Kinnock/ Howard candidate. Not there to win an election but appointed to steady the ship.
Except Starmer did actually win an election as the government was so unpopular
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.
This country is becoming a sick joke.
AFAIK that's basically the same as all the Stucco houses in Knightsbridge. You render over to cover the mess of the build.
PS I'm not really convinced that differential heating is a demonstrated major problem in the scheme of things, compared to for example great chunks of insulation left out of walls because the developer has been told that Building Control will be inspecting a different "sample" house on an estate.
Normally the final 2 in a Conservative party leadership election are a rightwinger and a One Nation liberal so hard to see both Badenoch and Jenrick getting to the final 2 as they are both in the latter category. So it may well have made sense for Jenrick to lend a few votes to Cleverly to ensure Badenoch is closer to him than Jenrick while Jenrick has the rightwinger spot sown up.
Meanwhile Cleverly and whoever is not eliminated next week out of Tugendhat or Stride will compete for the One Nation Liberal spot, though the latter 2 are probably closer to it than the former. Patel's camp also suggested some tactical votes from Badenoch and Cleverly to Stride to knock her out last week
The tactical voting by the Wets must be to ensure that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are in the final vote. The Drys on the other hand must vote tactically to ensure that at least one of Badenoch or Jenrick finish the MPs' stage with more votes than the second best of the Wet candidates.
Leadership elections post defeat are interesting. Compared to the Tories now, Labour had a mountain of talent in 2010 and 2015, but in both cases contrived to pick someone ill suited to the task.
It seems to be happening to the Tories. I still don’t understand how anyone in the Tory party can possibly believe that Jenrick is the answer. Davey and Farage will be delighted.
If I had to choose from who is left Cleverly stands out as someone with a bit of wit and warmth . Stride is the safe back to the 90s candidate. Interesting in a way. Old school.
Badenoch clearly has potential star quality. She’s will grab attention and could take on Farage. However she loves herself slightly too much and her politicking is clumsy and therefore hugely risky. I imagine her abrasive style has limited appeal to blue wall Tories.
Cleverly is probably the best one unless they want to roll the dice with Kemi and the bet comes good because her abrasive style is just a persona.
Cleverly lacks energy, Badenoch is too abrasive, Stride is unknown even in his household and Sunak 2.
Tugendhat is the most centrist candidate, Jenrick the best speaker
I don't buy the stuff about him not appealing to Reform; I think he'd have made a solid and serious Conservative offer on that, and he'd be great at fighting Labour on the economy and winning back LD seats.
The Tories made a big mistake from a long term point of view in choosing Johnson over Hunt, when all the Tory MPs knew damn well that Johnson lacked the character to be PM. Hunt is a good communicator, a serious person and is rooted close to the political centre ground. They would not be in the mess they are now if they had not made the Faustian pact of electing Johnson.
They didn't, had Hunt replaced May not Johnson the redwall seats would not have fallen, it would still have been a hung parliament and the Tories might even have come 3rd behind Labour and the Brexit Party
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.
Do you really think the government wants the conclusions of enquiries like the Post Office? Grenfell? Contaminated blood scandal, Covid enquirey etc?
Yes Minister was a sit com, not a documentary.
It is political management, IE have an Inquiry that drags on for 10 years, punt every difficult question in to it, until the problem hopefully goes away. It becomes an industry.
What is of concern is the problem I raised at the start of the thread. It purports to be a 'truth seeking' exercise but the lines are rather blurred with criminal investigations. It is in your interest to have your own legal representation, which some companies can pay for; and others have none, like the architect in the Grenfell case, putting them at a fatal disadvantage.
You also forget the neat trick. Legal council is provided by the organisations under fire for those giving evidence. So, do you drop the people providing your high priced lawyers in the poo? Or do you go with the flow?
That's actually what Trump did to keep his minions under control. His paid-for lawyers manipulate them, committing offences along the way.
One or more have reached (would have to look up specifics) plea deals after swapping from a Trump-paid lawyer to a public defender.
@Leon - good luck to your daughter, if she likes being away from the hustle and bustle of the big she'll enjoy it there.
Heard the accommodation situation was tight, as everywhere, has she secured a place in the town itself (or at least the outskirts?). I hear some were put up initially in Dundee the other year.
And at least a couple of direct trains into the heart of Camden each day should she wish to visit you - albeit from an Ely like station in the middle of a field 6 miles out.
I quite like Jacob Rees Mogg's idea (if it was him) delivered in the Liz Truss blue sky thinking session that we could plug a nuclear submarine into the grid and get free power.
I have no idea whether it would work, perhaps someone with greater nuclear knowledge than myself (almost everyone here) could opine.
They considered it during the early years of the Troubles. When strikes threatened power production they considered parking a nukesub in Belfast and running cables thru. But there are logistic problems: the reactor doesn't have a handy output socket and getting the cables out is difficult
Everything in a submarine that goes in or out has to fit thru a hatch. The submarines weren't built to allow cables to be run from the hatch to the reactor and I'm not sure the cable diameter was smaller than the hatch diameter. They thought they'd have to carve a hole in the hull.
Perhaps they could have done it eventually (military move fast when needed) but the urgency went away
TLDR: subs aren't built to do this
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.
So thick he made millions from managing his own hedge fund and is sold out for every Tory dinner he addresses and one of the highest rated presenters on GB News.
Normally the final 2 in a Conservative party leadership election are a rightwinger and a One Nation liberal so hard to see both Badenoch and Jenrick getting to the final 2 as they are both in the latter category. So it may well have made sense for Jenrick to lend a few votes to Cleverly to ensure Badenoch is closer to him than Jenrick while Jenrick has the rightwinger spot sown up.
Meanwhile Cleverly and whoever is not eliminated next week out of Tugendhat or Stride will compete for the One Nation Liberal spot, though the latter 2 are probably closer to it than the former. Patel's camp also suggested some tactical votes from Badenoch and Cleverly to Stride to knock her out last week
The tactical voting by the Wets must be to ensure that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are in the final vote. The Drys on the other hand must vote tactically to ensure that at least one of Badenoch or Jenrick finish the MPs' stage with more votes than the second best of the Wet candidates.
At this time of year, Test cricket in England should surely start at 10.30, if not 10.00. Sunrise today was at 06.32, 4.5 hours before an 11.00 start. Sunset today is at 19.32, 1.5 hours after the scheduled close."
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.
So thick he made millions from managing his own hedge fund and is sold out for every Tory dinner he addresses and one of the highest rated presenters on GB News.
Your last sentence shows everything that is wrong with today's conservative party
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
"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."
Interesting article. Points out that Harris really ought to be slightly further ahead at this stage to be confident of winning the election.
Neither can be confident of winnning, at the moment it looks the closest presidential election since Bush v Gore in 2000 and will be decided in Pennsylvania or Georgia
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.
I've no personal gripe about losing WFA but no-one seems to have acknowledged that the loss will hit much harder in places that get colder. There's quite a temperature differential in the UK.
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.
Do you really think the government wants the conclusions of enquiries like the Post Office? Grenfell? Contaminated blood scandal, Covid enquirey etc?
The whole conservative leadership race is a complete switch off for me
Just elect a leader and get on with it
Just elect a leader and get on with realising they are very poor and then get on with replacing them...
If Robert Jenrick is elected, the 'them' being replaced will be the party as a whole, and the replacers will be the Liberal Democrats.
Rubbish, the LDs are already down to just 11% on the latest poll, well behind Reform on 19% in a clear 3rd with the Tories up to 26% just 4% behind Labour on 30%.
Rubbish, Reform are completely hopeless at winning seats, whatever the headline polling numbers. They're a one-man ego trip led by a refugee from an A A Milne play, not a political party.
Still 8% ahead of the LDs and if that held Reform would be winning a number of white working class Labour seats next time
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
Enough about how bad things are, what’s his plan to actually fix the problems? All he’s done so far is handed out a bunch of pay rises to the existing staff.
Normally the final 2 in a Conservative party leadership election are a rightwinger and a One Nation liberal so hard to see both Badenoch and Jenrick getting to the final 2 as they are both in the latter category. So it may well have made sense for Jenrick to lend a few votes to Cleverly to ensure Badenoch is closer to him than Jenrick while Jenrick has the rightwinger spot sown up.
Meanwhile Cleverly and whoever is not eliminated next week out of Tugendhat or Stride will compete for the One Nation Liberal spot, though the latter 2 are probably closer to it than the former. Patel's camp also suggested some tactical votes from Badenoch and Cleverly to Stride to knock her out last week
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
Enough about how bad things are, what’s his plan to actually fix the problems? All he’s done so far is handed out a bunch of pay rises to the existing staff.
He doesn't seem to have realised he's now in Government.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
Enough about how bad things are, what’s his plan to actually fix the problems? All he’s done so far is handed out a bunch of pay rises to the existing staff.
He doesn't seem to have realised he's now in Government.
He even called Sunak PM 5 times in last week's PMQs
Normally the final 2 in a Conservative party leadership election are a rightwinger and a One Nation liberal so hard to see both Badenoch and Jenrick getting to the final 2 as they are both in the latter category. So it may well have made sense for Jenrick to lend a few votes to Cleverly to ensure Badenoch is closer to him than Jenrick while Jenrick has the rightwinger spot sown up.
Meanwhile Cleverly and whoever is not eliminated next week out of Tugendhat or Stride will compete for the One Nation Liberal spot, though the latter 2 are probably closer to it than the former. Patel's camp also suggested some tactical votes from Badenoch and Cleverly to Stride to knock her out last week
The tactical voting by the Wets must be to ensure that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are in the final vote. The Drys on the other hand must vote tactically to ensure that at least one of Badenoch or Jenrick finish the MPs' stage with more votes than the second best of the Wet candidates.
Both sides need a cunning coordinator
Not really- exhausting ballots lets them work it out as they go along.
There aren't enough centre-right votes to keep both Badenoch and Jenrick out of the final two. But there also aren't enough firm-right votes for a Badenoch-Jenrick final.
Normally the final 2 in a Conservative party leadership election are a rightwinger and a One Nation liberal so hard to see both Badenoch and Jenrick getting to the final 2 as they are both in the latter category. So it may well have made sense for Jenrick to lend a few votes to Cleverly to ensure Badenoch is closer to him than Jenrick while Jenrick has the rightwinger spot sown up.
Meanwhile Cleverly and whoever is not eliminated next week out of Tugendhat or Stride will compete for the One Nation Liberal spot, though the latter 2 are probably closer to it than the former. Patel's camp also suggested some tactical votes from Badenoch and Cleverly to Stride to knock her out last week
The tactical voting by the Wets must be to ensure that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are in the final vote. The Drys on the other hand must vote tactically to ensure that at least one of Badenoch or Jenrick finish the MPs' stage with more votes than the second best of the Wet candidates.
Impossible, there are more than enough rightwingers to ensure Badenoch or Jenrick get to the last 2. At the moment Jenrick looks likely to pick up most of Patel's backers too and will probably comfortably top the final MPs ballot, it is his opponent who is the main question. In my view it will probably be Cleverly or Tugendhat
Normally the final 2 in a Conservative party leadership election are a rightwinger and a One Nation liberal so hard to see both Badenoch and Jenrick getting to the final 2 as they are both in the latter category. So it may well have made sense for Jenrick to lend a few votes to Cleverly to ensure Badenoch is closer to him than Jenrick while Jenrick has the rightwinger spot sown up.
Meanwhile Cleverly and whoever is not eliminated next week out of Tugendhat or Stride will compete for the One Nation Liberal spot, though the latter 2 are probably closer to it than the former. Patel's camp also suggested some tactical votes from Badenoch and Cleverly to Stride to knock her out last week
The tactical voting by the Wets must be to ensure that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are in the final vote. The Drys on the other hand must vote tactically to ensure that at least one of Badenoch or Jenrick finish the MPs' stage with more votes than the second best of the Wet candidates.
From the betting point of view, the wet case looks impossible. For them to succeed they need 82+ votes divided carefully between two wet candidates when going from three to two, which anyway needs two wet candidates left at that stage, itself not a certainty.
The drys only need 41 votes behind a candidate when going from 3 to 2, assuming that in a wet v dry final two, the dry wins.
The outlier possibility is a candidate who is both wet and dry (Cleverly is, I think, the only possibility of this). Also of course that the membership don't do as is assumed.
I don't see any value in the market as it stands unless (1) you see Cleverly cleverly coming up through the middle, but he is too short really, or (2) you see the party making a Damascene conversion to Stride. (They could and will do much worse than do so, but that doesn't make it happen).
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.
So thick he made millions from managing his own hedge fund and is sold out for every Tory dinner he addresses and one of the highest rated presenters on GB News.
None of those are evidence of intellect. Especially the last two.
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.
Do you really think the government wants the conclusions of enquiries like the Post Office? Grenfell? Contaminated blood scandal, Covid enquirey etc?
Yes Minister was a sit com, not a documentary.
It is political management, IE have an Inquiry that drags on for 10 years, punt every difficult question in to it, until the problem hopefully goes away. It becomes an industry.
What is of concern is the problem I raised at the start of the thread. It purports to be a 'truth seeking' exercise but the lines are rather blurred with criminal investigations. It is in your interest to have your own legal representation, which some companies can pay for; and others have none, like the architect in the Grenfell case, putting them at a fatal disadvantage.
You also forget the neat trick. Legal council is provided by the organisations under fire for those giving evidence. So, do you drop the people providing your high priced lawyers in the poo? Or do you go with the flow?
Ultimately it would be quite brave to do what the search for truth dictates, in the spirit of the Inquiry.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
Enough about how bad things are, what’s his plan to actually fix the problems? All he’s done so far is handed out a bunch of pay rises to the existing staff.
He doesn't seem to have realised he's now in Government.
There is a huge, if minority, market and audience for considered and thought out solutions to things, an audience that rejected the Tory offer, does not think that everything can be done instantly, has almost no belief in legislating our way out of things, has no interest in gimmicks or eye catching initiatives, doesn't need to be told that the Tories have been sub-optimal, and can think long term.
This audience is not being well served, so far, by the new Labour government. It also isn't being well served by journalism. The places this audience will look for this sort of intelligence would be Times, Guardian, New Statesman, Speccie, Economist, BBC. I don't know what other PB volk think, but it seems to me they are doing less well in the matter of 'solutions' than they might. Is it just me?
You need max of 41 (and realistically only 39 or 40) to make the final. So the moderate wing are guaranteed to get someone in the final.
So there is no chance whatsoever of the final being Jenrick v Badenoch - unless Jenrick has lent at least 14 votes which isn't realistic.
If Badenoch thinks Jenrick is lending votes, then Jenrick's true lead over Badenoch is even greater - making Badenoch's chance of making the final even less than it appears.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
Enough about how bad things are, what’s his plan to actually fix the problems? All he’s done so far is handed out a bunch of pay rises to the existing staff.
He doesn't seem to have realised he's now in Government.
He even called Sunak PM 5 times in last week's PMQs
Who cares about such things though. Starmer is doing just fine at the moment. When you look at the house of horrors he's had to corral into his cabinet he's doing astonishingly well.
It's just vacuum for Starmer below his crust of adequate colleagues.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
Look carefully at this. It is only telling us what we know. That is why the Tories lost the election. We know it's awful. It's time to communicate well the long term strategy and plan for which they have been elected.
Normally the final 2 in a Conservative party leadership election are a rightwinger and a One Nation liberal so hard to see both Badenoch and Jenrick getting to the final 2 as they are both in the latter category. So it may well have made sense for Jenrick to lend a few votes to Cleverly to ensure Badenoch is closer to him than Jenrick while Jenrick has the rightwinger spot sown up.
Meanwhile Cleverly and whoever is not eliminated next week out of Tugendhat or Stride will compete for the One Nation Liberal spot, though the latter 2 are probably closer to it than the former. Patel's camp also suggested some tactical votes from Badenoch and Cleverly to Stride to knock her out last week
The tactical voting by the Wets must be to ensure that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are in the final vote. The Drys on the other hand must vote tactically to ensure that at least one of Badenoch or Jenrick finish the MPs' stage with more votes than the second best of the Wet candidates.
From the betting point of view, the wet case looks impossible. For them to succeed they need 82+ votes divided carefully between two wet candidates when going from three to two, which anyway needs two wet candidates left at that stage, itself not a certainty.
The drys only need 41 votes behind a candidate when going from 3 to 2, assuming that in a wet v dry final two, the dry wins.
The outlier possibility is a candidate who is both wet and dry (Cleverly is, I think, the only possibility of this). Also of course that the membership don't do as is assumed.
I don't see any value in the market as it stands unless (1) you see Cleverly cleverly coming up through the middle, but he is too short really, or (2) you see the party making a Damascene conversion to Stride. (They could and will do much worse than do so, but that doesn't make it happen).
Stride has more chance of being next LD leader than next Tory leader, the last Conhome members survey had Badenoch crushing him 69% to 16% and Jenrick trouncing him 61% to 20%. Even Tugendhat gets closer to Kemi than he does with 28%.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
Enough about how bad things are, what’s his plan to actually fix the problems? All he’s done so far is handed out a bunch of pay rises to the existing staff.
He doesn't seem to have realised he's now in Government.
There is a huge, if minority, market and audience for considered and thought out solutions to things, an audience that rejected the Tory offer, does not think that everything can be done instantly, has almost no belief in legislating our way out of things, has no interest in gimmicks or eye catching initiatives, doesn't need to be told that the Tories have been sub-optimal, and can think long term.
This audience is not being well served, so far, by the new Labour government. It also isn't being well served by journalism. The places this audience will look for this sort of intelligence would be Times, Guardian, New Statesman, Speccie, Economist, BBC. I don't know what other PB volk think, but it seems to me they are doing less well in the matter of 'solutions' than they might. Is it just me?
No.
But, Shirley, if we pass just 100,000 pages more legislation, we can create Nirvana? No need for enforcement or even spending money. Just lovely laws & regulation's
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
It maybe a bit useless since Covid, but it has not suffered a hapenny of austerity. Indeed austerity was overall public spending going back to the pre financial crisis stimulus. The Coalition however decided to maintain NHS spending at this artificial high which meant that spending elsewhere was quite severely cut, more so in policing and local government.
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.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
Normally the final 2 in a Conservative party leadership election are a rightwinger and a One Nation liberal so hard to see both Badenoch and Jenrick getting to the final 2 as they are both in the latter category. So it may well have made sense for Jenrick to lend a few votes to Cleverly to ensure Badenoch is closer to him than Jenrick while Jenrick has the rightwinger spot sown up.
Meanwhile Cleverly and whoever is not eliminated next week out of Tugendhat or Stride will compete for the One Nation Liberal spot, though the latter 2 are probably closer to it than the former. Patel's camp also suggested some tactical votes from Badenoch and Cleverly to Stride to knock her out last week
The tactical voting by the Wets must be to ensure that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are in the final vote. The Drys on the other hand must vote tactically to ensure that at least one of Badenoch or Jenrick finish the MPs' stage with more votes than the second best of the Wet candidates.
Impossible, there are more than enough rightwingers to ensure Badenoch or Jenrick get to the last 2. At the moment Jenrick looks likely to pick up most of Patel's backers too and will probably comfortably top the final MPs ballot, it is his opponent who is the main question. In my view it will probably be Cleverly or Tugendhat
IMHO, if this analysis is sound, and it probably is, the one in the final two that isn't Jenrick will be the one (that isn't Badenoch) that MPs think more likely to beat Jenrick with the members. That's Cleverly.
Betting wise, I am uncertain if that makes either jenrick or Cleverly value. But it certainly suggests Badenoch isn't.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
You need max of 41 (and realistically only 39 or 40) to make the final. So the moderate wing are guaranteed to get someone in the final.
So there is no chance whatsoever of the final being Jenrick v Badenoch - unless Jenrick has lent at least 14 votes which isn't realistic.
If Badenoch thinks Jenrick is lending votes, then Jenrick's true lead over Badenoch is even greater - making Badenoch's chance of making the final even less than it appears.
Yes looks like Kemi may be heading down the Portillo 2001 route, the initial darling of the right and clear favourite but who MPs knocked out before the members vote
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
Normally the final 2 in a Conservative party leadership election are a rightwinger and a One Nation liberal so hard to see both Badenoch and Jenrick getting to the final 2 as they are both in the latter category. So it may well have made sense for Jenrick to lend a few votes to Cleverly to ensure Badenoch is closer to him than Jenrick while Jenrick has the rightwinger spot sown up.
Meanwhile Cleverly and whoever is not eliminated next week out of Tugendhat or Stride will compete for the One Nation Liberal spot, though the latter 2 are probably closer to it than the former. Patel's camp also suggested some tactical votes from Badenoch and Cleverly to Stride to knock her out last week
The tactical voting by the Wets must be to ensure that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are in the final vote. The Drys on the other hand must vote tactically to ensure that at least one of Badenoch or Jenrick finish the MPs' stage with more votes than the second best of the Wet candidates.
Impossible, there are more than enough rightwingers to ensure Badenoch or Jenrick get to the last 2. At the moment Jenrick looks likely to pick up most of Patel's backers too and will probably comfortably top the final MPs ballot, it is his opponent who is the main question. In my view it will probably be Cleverly or Tugendhat
IMHO, if this analysis is sound, and it probably is, the one in the final two that isn't Jenrick will be the one (that isn't Badenoch) that MPs think more likely to beat Jenrick with the members. That's Cleverly.
Betting wise, I am uncertain if that makes either jenrick or Cleverly value. But it certainly suggests Badenoch isn't.
Yes, Jenrick should be strong favourite now in my view unless Patel's votes on Tuesday shift en masse to Badenoch which is unlikely. Indeed Cleverly may get more Patel votes than Kemi
Who does @HYUFD think will win? From what I recall he was right last time...
Kemi apparently beats all the others in a head to head with the members... I wouldn't be so confident she won't win? 3.3 doesn't look bad odds tbh.
The thing is that the moderate wing of the party has well over one third of the votes. So both Jenrick and Badenoch can't go to the members. One of Cleverley or Stride or Tugendhat has to go through.To win she needs to get ahead of Jenrick on MPs' votes. And that doesn't look very likely unless he makes a big mistake.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
Enough about how bad things are, what’s his plan to actually fix the problems? All he’s done so far is handed out a bunch of pay rises to the existing staff.
He doesn't seem to have realised he's now in Government.
There is a huge, if minority, market and audience for considered and thought out solutions to things, an audience that rejected the Tory offer, does not think that everything can be done instantly, has almost no belief in legislating our way out of things, has no interest in gimmicks or eye catching initiatives, doesn't need to be told that the Tories have been sub-optimal, and can think long term.
This audience is not being well served, so far, by the new Labour government. It also isn't being well served by journalism. The places this audience will look for this sort of intelligence would be Times, Guardian, New Statesman, Speccie, Economist, BBC. I don't know what other PB volk think, but it seems to me they are doing less well in the matter of 'solutions' than they might. Is it just me?
This is what is worrying me. - On planning reform, their signature policy, they have revealed that they understand almost nothing about viability, ie how to get things built by the private sector. - They seem to be extremely careless about inflation. IE renters rights bill? great. Rents up 10%. - There is selective austerity, ie austerity except for their favoured groups, which get a pay rise.
Who does @HYUFD think will win? From what I recall he was right last time...
Kemi apparently beats all the others in a head to head with the members... I wouldn't be so confident she won't win? 3.3 doesn't look bad odds tbh.
The thing is that the moderate wing of the party has well over one third of the votes. So both Jenrick and Badenoch can't go to the members. One of Cleverley or Stride or Tugendhat has to go through.To win she needs to get ahead of Jenrick on MPs' votes. And that doesn't look very likely unless he makes a big mistake.
Once Jenrick came through to outflank her on the right, her strategy was in trouble. And that was always going to be easy for him out of government.
Her only remaining hope is to rebrand herself as a moderate to take the Stop Bob slot. Hence this morning's header piece. Trouble is, she is utterly unconvincing in that role.
I have some sympathy with them but Letby should have had more experts giving evidence called by her defence team
This is not, at the moment, a knowable item. We do not, and until privilege is waived by Letby, cannot know what was the nature of the evidence that was unused. We know it exists because the Court of Appeal has said so.
It is, of course, unthinkable not to use material which will assist and not harm the defence.
@Leon - good luck to your daughter, if she likes being away from the hustle and bustle of the big she'll enjoy it there.
Heard the accommodation situation was tight, as everywhere, has she secured a place in the town itself (or at least the outskirts?). I hear some were put up initially in Dundee the other year.
And at least a couple of direct trains into the heart of Camden each day should she wish to visit you - albeit from an Ely like station in the middle of a field 6 miles out.
Who does @HYUFD think will win? From what I recall he was right last time...
Kemi apparently beats all the others in a head to head with the members... I wouldn't be so confident she won't win? 3.3 doesn't look bad odds tbh.
The thing is that the moderate wing of the party has well over one third of the votes. So both Jenrick and Badenoch can't go to the members. One of Cleverley or Stride or Tugendhat has to go through.To win she needs to get ahead of Jenrick on MPs' votes. And that doesn't look very likely unless he makes a big mistake.
Once Jenrick came through to outflank her on the right, her strategy was in trouble. And that was always going to be easy for him out of government.
Her only remaining hope is to rebrand herself as a moderate to take the Stop Bob slot. Hence this morning's header piece. Trouble is, she is utterly unconvincing in that role.
She then would end up with Portillo's or Mordaunt's problem in 2001 or 2022, losing the right to IDS or Truss and now Jenrick while the moderate wing sticks with Ken Clarke, Sunak and now Cleverly or Tugendhat
Who does @HYUFD think will win? From what I recall he was right last time...
Kemi apparently beats all the others in a head to head with the members... I wouldn't be so confident she won't win? 3.3 doesn't look bad odds tbh.
The thing is that the moderate wing of the party has well over one third of the votes. So both Jenrick and Badenoch can't go to the members. One of Cleverley or Stride or Tugendhat has to go through.To win she needs to get ahead of Jenrick on MPs' votes. And that doesn't look very likely unless he makes a big mistake.
I hope Jenrick wins. He’s the best candidate to further alienate the voters the Tories need to stay ahead of the Lib Dems.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
Enough about how bad things are, what’s his plan to actually fix the problems? All he’s done so far is handed out a bunch of pay rises to the existing staff.
He doesn't seem to have realised he's now in Government.
There is a huge, if minority, market and audience for considered and thought out solutions to things, an audience that rejected the Tory offer, does not think that everything can be done instantly, has almost no belief in legislating our way out of things, has no interest in gimmicks or eye catching initiatives, doesn't need to be told that the Tories have been sub-optimal, and can think long term.
This audience is not being well served, so far, by the new Labour government. It also isn't being well served by journalism. The places this audience will look for this sort of intelligence would be Times, Guardian, New Statesman, Speccie, Economist, BBC. I don't know what other PB volk think, but it seems to me they are doing less well in the matter of 'solutions' than they might. Is it just me?
There don't seem to be any solutions whatever. We thought they'd all been hiding their policies in a 'Ming vase' strategy, but it would appear they just didn't have any.
John Redwood has been very good on his blog - he's already exposed Reeves' 'OBR forecast law' as complete political cobblers - it imposes no penalty for not commissioning a report, and she has already spaffed cash at the train drivers etc. with zero OBR involvement.
Comments
Yes Minister was a sit com, not a documentary.
1. Sarah Palin.
That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946
France’s new prime minister admits he doesn’t have ‘much in common’ with the National Rally but vows crackdown on migration"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/07/michel-barnier-france-borders-sieves-national-rally-migrant/
1) George W. Bush.*
Living former nominees to the office:
1) Mitt Romney
Former vice presidents and nominees does extend to Quayle, Cheney, Palin, Ryan and Pence. But it's not a long list.
*If he wanted to be Machiavellian, he should endorse Trump and say he'd run the kind of Presidency Bush himself did.
More to the point, The 2025 Guardian University Guide published today (none of these are all that great but they are not useless) has no fewer than 5 Scottish universities in the UK top 17. (That's 29%). By contrast Scotland has 8% of the total UK population.
18 year olds do well to consider going north.
How nice to come to a handsome British town which also seems safe and affluent and thriving
And Chinese - expected
Less expected - lots of Italians
Scotland (and to an extent Wales) have been showing they way. Though TBF the Scot Gov have just withdrawn a some way on the 10% of transport spend to active travel spend the Greens made them do - I'm not sure of details. Wales has been doing more on eg the legal framework around access.
The new UK Govt are making reasonable noises about what is coming, especially around budgets being long-term settlements. Previously there was the weird thing that the Highawyas Authority for England Roads budget would be fixed at the srart of a 5 year period, and the cycling elements wsa wrangled about for a further 2.5 years, so there was no time to spend except in a huge rush because they don't use all their powers for that (eg CPO) unlike roads.
It's still a chaotic mess, but shows signs of getting sorted and tidied up, and consistency coming in.
Whilst you are here, I would really recommend Laura Laker's book Potholes and Pavements, which covers EWS; the only bits missed are Eastern England and my neck of the woods. I've listened to the audiobook on audible.com and it is great, Lots of Scotland, and lots of history of how it has been developed, plus much about policy.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Potholes-Pavements-Britains-National-Network/dp/1399406469
What is of concern is the problem I raised at the start of the thread. It purports to be a 'truth seeking' exercise but the lines are rather blurred with criminal investigations. It is in your interest to have your own legal representation, which some companies can pay for; and others have none, like the architect in the Grenfell case, putting them at a fatal disadvantage.
https://www.navylookout.com/why-are-no-royal-navy-attack-submarines-at-sea/
If the new Government are going to fix these basics, and I cannot tell if they are, it won't be a rapid fix.
Tri-Cities Herald (via Seattle Times) - Moderate Republicans may have courted MAGA voters to save [Republican Congressman Dan] Newhouse
[note that Tri-Cities in this context, refers to eastern WA cities of Kennewick, Pasco & Richland in WA CD04]
A PAC aligned with Republican incumbent Dan Newhouse reportedly spent $35,000 on a text messaging campaign in Central Washington to promote a challenger they believed he will beat in the general election.
A story this week by Politico says the campaign sent tens of thousands of text messages to the biggest supporters of former President Donald Trump in the days leading up to the Aug. 6 primary election.
Those messages focused on promoting Republican challenger Jerrod Sessler as Trump’s preferred candidate, overshadowing another challenger, Tiffany Smiley, also a Republican, in the primary.
Smiley received the former president’s endorsement 72 hours before ballot drop boxes closed, obfuscating a clear, single choice for MAGA-aligned voters in the final hours of the race for Washington’s 4th Congressional District.
“Tiffany would have been a problem for Dan,” Sarah Chamberlain, CEO and president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, told Politico. “We had 35,000 MAGA [voters] that we knew were hardcore Trumpers. And we had all their contacts, so we just kept texting.”
Chamberlain argued Sessler would be the easier opponent for Newhouse to defeat in the 2024 general election. Smiley had previously taken more moderate stances on issues during her failed 2022 run for U.S. Senate, and her presence in the general election would have threatened the broader coalition of voters that Newhouse needs to win a sixth term in Congress.
SSI - Personally disagree with that Tiffany Smiley would have "threatened" incubent Dan Newhouse any more than Jerrod Selser. Seeing as how:
> Smiley is as much a MAGA-maniac as Selzer, with her allegedly "moderate stances" in 2022 somewhat less than that.
> Newhouse got elected to US House in first place (and has mostly stayed there the same way) by running against another GOPer in the general election, after both were top vote-getters in WA's "Top Two" primary; in all such cases Newhouse beat a wack-job right-winger, with the support of Democratic voters in the absence of a Democratic option on the fall ballot.
There’s a long, long tradition of
“Well, his company sold ships. The front fell off most of them and crews drowned.
The ship yard is awfully sorry, the chap who bought the ships has retired. The government inspectorate who failed to notice the ships lacked attachments for the bows had beautiful paperwork.
So we arrested Fred Muggle, third deputy welding rod holder on a charge of Aggravated Being Left Holding The Bag. But he was found not guilty after a trial.
So after the enquiry and the trial 20 years have passed. Too late to do anything.
What’s that you say? The front fell off a ship?”
It has Noom. My photo quota:
This country - in fact, any country - have always had problems. It's just that the Internet and modern communications/media allows us to see everything that is going on, if we want. And we only ever hear the bad stories, not the much more frequent times when things go right.
This is made worse by people actively wanting to highlight the bad things, for whatever reason.
That does not mean we need to be complacent; far from. But sometimes it's good to step back and be thankful for the things that do just work (tm).
Things can, and often do, change for the better. As an example, the Loscoe explosion in 1986 has led to a massive change in the way waste tips are managed. But we don't get to hear about the explosions that do not occur because now things are done properly. The later Gorebridge incident (slightly different) was dealt with fairly promptly.
https://futureclimateinfo.com/ground-gas-the-lessons-from-loscoe/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-27905611
“everyone”…. above the Magic Level. The Magic Level being that where failure is transubstantiated into career improvement.
Meanwhile Cleverly and whoever is not eliminated next week out of Tugendhat or Stride will compete for the One Nation Liberal spot, though the latter 2 are probably closer to it than the former. Patel's camp also suggested some tactical votes from Badenoch and Cleverly to Stride to knock her out last week
https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/bmg-the-i-poll-the-labour-party-honeymoon-and-voting-intention/
Already significant swings from Labour in last week's council by elections too
https://conservativehome.com/2024/09/06/council-by-election-results-from-this-week-and-forthcoming-contests-24/
However it is problematic when everyone who cannot do that is excluded for no good reason. It is also problematic when it contributes to poor health etc.
I have multiple *walking* trails in my area where the only real way to get there is to drive, because they are not linked together. That is self-satirical to the point of absurdity. 25% of adults do not have a driving licence.
Tugendhat is the most centrist candidate, Jenrick the best speaker
One or more have reached (would have to look up specifics) plea deals after swapping from a Trump-paid lawyer to a public defender.
Heard the accommodation situation was tight, as everywhere, has she secured a place in the town itself (or at least the outskirts?). I hear some were put up initially in Dundee the other year.
And at least a couple of direct trains into the heart of Camden each day should she wish to visit you - albeit from an Ely like station in the middle of a field 6 miles out.
Test Match Special commentator on X
At this time of year, Test cricket in England should surely start at 10.30, if not 10.00. Sunrise today was at 06.32, 4.5 hours before an 11.00 start. Sunset today is at 19.32, 1.5 hours after the scheduled close."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/ck77w1j1yd0t
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1m0vxxk7yno
Good evening, everybody.
Trump denies sexually assaulting a woman on a plane:
“She would not have been the chosen one”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1832101814084263941
It's as though he believes women ought to be flattered to be the target of his sexual asssults.
There aren't enough centre-right votes to keep both Badenoch and Jenrick out of the final two. But there also aren't enough firm-right votes for a Badenoch-Jenrick final.
The drys only need 41 votes behind a candidate when going from 3 to 2, assuming that in a wet v dry final two, the dry wins.
The outlier possibility is a candidate who is both wet and dry (Cleverly is, I think, the only possibility of this). Also of course that the membership don't do as is assumed.
I don't see any value in the market as it stands unless (1) you see Cleverly cleverly coming up through the middle, but he is too short really, or (2) you see the party making a Damascene conversion to Stride. (They could and will do much worse than do so, but that doesn't make it happen).
Edit - also one of the replies points out it's highly unlikely he was reading Art of the Deal, as Tony Schwartz didn't write it until 8 years later.
This audience is not being well served, so far, by the new Labour government. It also isn't being well served by journalism. The places this audience will look for this sort of intelligence would be Times, Guardian, New Statesman, Speccie, Economist, BBC. I don't know what other PB volk think, but it seems to me they are doing less well in the matter of 'solutions' than they might. Is it just me?
He's also moving his lips.
Right = Jenrick+Badenoch+Patel = 64
Moderate = Cleverly+Tugendhat+Stride = 54
You need max of 41 (and realistically only 39 or 40) to make the final. So the moderate wing are guaranteed to get someone in the final.
So there is no chance whatsoever of the final being Jenrick v Badenoch - unless Jenrick has lent at least 14 votes which isn't realistic.
If Badenoch thinks Jenrick is lending votes, then Jenrick's true lead over Badenoch is even greater - making Badenoch's chance of making the final even less than it appears.
It's just vacuum for Starmer below his crust of adequate colleagues.
Cleverly v Jenrick would be close though, 36% to 48% albeit Badenoch would comfortably beat both. She leads Cleverly 57% to 27% and Jenrick 51% to 34%
https://conservativehome.com/2024/09/04/our-survey-badenoch-maintains-her-lead-in-the-leadership-race-and-defeats-all-comers-in-the-final-round/
Victims’ families tell The Sunday Times that the campaign to free killer nurse has made them question humanity
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-baby-parents-conviction-innocent-kpsdgwpbb
But, Shirley, if we pass just 100,000 pages more legislation, we can create Nirvana? No need for enforcement or even spending money. Just lovely laws & regulation's
It was right then, its right now.
Betting wise, I am uncertain if that makes either jenrick or Cleverly value. But it certainly suggests Badenoch isn't.
https://napolitaninstitute.org/2024/09/06/harris-continues-to-lead-trump-50-to-48/
The NHS was the only department to never have austerity, to never have a funding cut.
Well, the NHS and pensions.
(PS I take my comment from the title by AJ Cronin)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/06/its-still-kemi-badenochs-race-to-lose/
BTW It is noticeable (I think) that the journalists etc who sat through the trial have not been vocal in condemning it.
- On planning reform, their signature policy, they have revealed that they understand almost nothing about viability, ie how to get things built by the private sector.
- They seem to be extremely careless about inflation. IE renters rights bill? great. Rents up 10%.
- There is selective austerity, ie austerity except for their favoured groups, which get a pay rise.
Her only remaining hope is to rebrand herself as a moderate to take the Stop Bob slot. Hence this morning's header piece. Trouble is, she is utterly unconvincing in that role.
It is, of course, unthinkable not to use material which will assist and not harm the defence.
John Redwood has been very good on his blog - he's already exposed Reeves' 'OBR forecast law' as complete political cobblers - it imposes no penalty for not commissioning a report, and she has already spaffed cash at the train drivers etc. with zero OBR involvement.