This will be tempting for a lot of failed Tories - at the moment, being a Reform candidate offers a far better chance of getting back into parliament than being a Tory one. And the earlier you do it, the better your chance of getting a plum position.
The attraction for Reform (beyond a bit of publicity) is that it gets viable, experienced candidates (if not earth-shattering ones). Though they need to be careful not to become a retirement home for failed Tories.
Braverman or Truss going over if the trends stay the same wouldn't surprise me. Though Truss is by way of damaged goods (unfairly in my opinion).
She was also responsible for dragging this country back to being a country where you could do business rather than being ruled by unelected union barons, and where even removal services were run by unionised nationalised loss making industries.
Sadly the current bunch of incompetent economically illiterate numpties would like to take us back there.
She did some good things which I acknowledge. She was a strong and principled leader which I admire.
But she also did a lot of very bad things that have caused the problems we now face. Surely that can be acknowledged.
Like her policy on council housing.
The problem is that we have no counter-factuals. If she had not done these things, what state would the country been in?
Take rail privatisation: it gave us the safest and busiest rail network ever. Passenger numbers doubled. It's hard to call that an absolute failure, and I also find it hard to believe that the railways would have attracted the same investment if they had remained nationalised.
Also, sometimes people can do things that appear positive in the short- and medium-term, only for the problems to appear in the long-term - and sometimes those problems are not necessarily due to the initial action, but subsequent inaction.
The subsidies the railways receive are higher than they ever were when they were nationalised. So my view is the improvements were from spending a lot more money, not because the private sector did a load of innovating.
To give a counterfactual, the NI trains were never privatised. They run fine. Same as London Underground.
Not massively higher. I'd have to check, but I *think*, once you take network enhancements out of the picture, that subsidy per passenger is down - at least pre-covid. (*)
"18. This work shows that the railway has been a victim of its own success. Increased demand for rail has led to new capital projects, increasing Network Rail's level of borrowing and the annual charges it must meet to pay for that borrowing. Increased passenger numbers have also fuelled demand for more, better quality rolling stock, which comes at a cost. Better facilities, and more reliable rail services, have generated more demand for rail travel. What in many ways is a virtuous circle has a vicious element - escalating cost."
(*) It can sometimes be hard to compare figures, as some charts and tables show things like HS2 and Crossrail included in the subsidy, whilst others do not.
But why is debt a bad thing when it's funding infrastructure improvements that result in productivity and economic boosts for the wider economy? A public service doesn't need to make money. .
Because it crowds out investment that would deliver much higher productivity and boosts for the wider economy.
The cost benefit ratio of many rail projects is extremely low (partial exceptions are London commuter rail and mass transit improvements). HS2 is now heavy negative.
The debt would be much better accumulated on corporate tax or payroll cuts, which generate the best productivity boost for each pound spent. Or, if we still want to spend it on infrastructure, road improvements around London do best I understand - some return £7 for each £ invested, compared to £2.50 for Crossrail 2 and about 60p for HS2.
The idea that we should spend money on roads over railways is absolutely laughable.
HS2 is heavy negative because we didn't get on build it. It got completely stuck by endless red tape and inquiries.
As usual, stop delaying, start building.
You seem very strong on your stance on building, but are you prepared to support the repeal of European nutrient neutrality regulations that are currently preventing 100,000 dwellings that *have* planning permission from being built? All because of the amount of poo that will go into rivers from the new houses - despite the fact that the same poo is going into rivers, because it doesn't matter if you live with your mum, you still poo?
Tried by the Tories, failed in the Lords, Gove then bottled it and shelved the bill.
Likewise, are you prepared to repeal EU species protection legislation if it turns out that this was at the basis of HS2's decision (using the advice of the quango Natural England) to build a £100mn bat tunnel?
Yes
I am glad to hear it. It will enrich our next 'Can someone name me a SINGLE BREXIT BENEFIT?' conversation.
Tongue somewhat in cheek, a paneuropean mindset can be helpful here. Why does it matter if Bat X or Newt Y is endangered here if there are shitloads of the same creature all across Europe...
We have the opposite problem in the UK with Great Crested Newts - rare in Europe, so protected, but in the UK you can find one under any rock you look under - which creates a challenge for developers, because it's dead easy to hold up development by finding newts that need rehousing.
I’m sure the odd NIMBY activist would not be averse at finding a few newts and moving them onto a development they object to.
She was also responsible for dragging this country back to being a country where you could do business rather than being ruled by unelected union barons, and where even removal services were run by unionised nationalised loss making industries.
Sadly the current bunch of incompetent economically illiterate numpties would like to take us back there.
She did some good things which I acknowledge. She was a strong and principled leader which I admire.
But she also did a lot of very bad things that have caused the problems we now face. Surely that can be acknowledged.
Like her policy on council housing.
The problem is that we have no counter-factuals. If she had not done these things, what state would the country been in?
Take rail privatisation: it gave us the safest and busiest rail network ever. Passenger numbers doubled. It's hard to call that an absolute failure, and I also find it hard to believe that the railways would have attracted the same investment if they had remained nationalised.
Also, sometimes people can do things that appear positive in the short- and medium-term, only for the problems to appear in the long-term - and sometimes those problems are not necessarily due to the initial action, but subsequent inaction.
The subsidies the railways receive are higher than they ever were when they were nationalised. So my view is the improvements were from spending a lot more money, not because the private sector did a load of innovating.
To give a counterfactual, the NI trains were never privatised. They run fine. Same as London Underground.
Not massively higher. I'd have to check, but I *think*, once you take network enhancements out of the picture, that subsidy per passenger is down - at least pre-covid. (*)
"18. This work shows that the railway has been a victim of its own success. Increased demand for rail has led to new capital projects, increasing Network Rail's level of borrowing and the annual charges it must meet to pay for that borrowing. Increased passenger numbers have also fuelled demand for more, better quality rolling stock, which comes at a cost. Better facilities, and more reliable rail services, have generated more demand for rail travel. What in many ways is a virtuous circle has a vicious element - escalating cost."
(*) It can sometimes be hard to compare figures, as some charts and tables show things like HS2 and Crossrail included in the subsidy, whilst others do not.
But why is debt a bad thing when it's funding infrastructure improvements that result in productivity and economic boosts for the wider economy? A public service doesn't need to make money. .
Because it crowds out investment that would deliver much higher productivity and boosts for the wider economy.
The cost benefit ratio of many rail projects is extremely low (partial exceptions are London commuter rail and mass transit improvements). HS2 is now heavy negative.
The debt would be much better accumulated on corporate tax or payroll cuts, which generate the best productivity boost for each pound spent. Or, if we still want to spend it on infrastructure, road improvements around London do best I understand - some return £7 for each £ invested, compared to £2.50 for Crossrail 2 and about 60p for HS2.
The idea that we should spend money on roads over railways is absolutely laughable.
HS2 is heavy negative because we didn't get on build it. It got completely stuck by endless red tape and inquiries.
As usual, stop delaying, start building.
You seem very strong on your stance on building, but are you prepared to support the repeal of European nutrient neutrality regulations that are currently preventing 100,000 dwellings that *have* planning permission from being built? All because of the amount of poo that will go into rivers from the new houses - despite the fact that the same poo is going into rivers, because it doesn't matter if you live with your mum, you still poo?
Tried by the Tories, failed in the Lords, Gove then bottled it and shelved the bill.
Likewise, are you prepared to repeal EU species protection legislation if it turns out that this was at the basis of HS2's decision (using the advice of the quango Natural England) to build a £100mn bat tunnel?
Yes
I am glad to hear it. It will enrich our next 'Can someone name me a SINGLE BREXIT BENEFIT?' conversation.
I don’t think I’ve ever said there aren’t any Brexit benefits. Just that they are essentially fairly trivial.
Yes, I'll stick up for Horse here - AFAIR he tends to not particularly value the benefits of Brexit rather than deny their existence like some. A reasonable position, if not one I agree with.
I'm happy to accept that. I was certainly not attributing that exact phrase to CHB.
This will be tempting for a lot of failed Tories - at the moment, being a Reform candidate offers a far better chance of getting back into parliament than being a Tory one. And the earlier you do it, the better your chance of getting a plum position.
The attraction for Reform (beyond a bit of publicity) is that it gets viable, experienced candidates (if not earth-shattering ones). Though they need to be careful not to become a retirement home for failed Tories.
Braverman or Truss going over if the trends stay the same wouldn't surprise me. Though Truss is by way of damaged goods (unfairly in my opinion).
Truss? Why on earth would Reform want Truss?
Because she's a former Tory PM.
I've acknowledged that she's damaged goods, so I'm not sure how this is an interesting avenue of discussion?
This will be tempting for a lot of failed Tories - at the moment, being a Reform candidate offers a far better chance of getting back into parliament than being a Tory one. And the earlier you do it, the better your chance of getting a plum position.
The attraction for Reform (beyond a bit of publicity) is that it gets viable, experienced candidates (if not earth-shattering ones). Though they need to be careful not to become a retirement home for failed Tories.
Braverman or Truss going over if the trends stay the same wouldn't surprise me. Though Truss is by way of damaged goods (unfairly in my opinion).
Truss? Why on earth would Reform want Truss?
Profile. Yes there's the question of how people remember her, and that blowing back on them if she switched, but on balance it'd probably still work out positively.
This will be tempting for a lot of failed Tories - at the moment, being a Reform candidate offers a far better chance of getting back into parliament than being a Tory one. And the earlier you do it, the better your chance of getting a plum position.
The attraction for Reform (beyond a bit of publicity) is that it gets viable, experienced candidates (if not earth-shattering ones). Though they need to be careful not to become a retirement home for failed Tories.
Braverman or Truss going over if the trends stay the same wouldn't surprise me. Though Truss is by way of damaged goods (unfairly in my opinion).
Truss? Why on earth would Reform want Truss?
Because she's a former Tory PM.
I've acknowledged that she's damaged goods, so I'm not sure how this is an interesting avenue of discussion?
To be fair, you’ve never wavered from supporting her unlike many who pretend they didn’t. So I do think that shows much for your character.
She was also responsible for dragging this country back to being a country where you could do business rather than being ruled by unelected union barons, and where even removal services were run by unionised nationalised loss making industries.
Sadly the current bunch of incompetent economically illiterate numpties would like to take us back there.
She did some good things which I acknowledge. She was a strong and principled leader which I admire.
But she also did a lot of very bad things that have caused the problems we now face. Surely that can be acknowledged.
Like her policy on council housing.
The problem is that we have no counter-factuals. If she had not done these things, what state would the country been in?
Take rail privatisation: it gave us the safest and busiest rail network ever. Passenger numbers doubled. It's hard to call that an absolute failure, and I also find it hard to believe that the railways would have attracted the same investment if they had remained nationalised.
Also, sometimes people can do things that appear positive in the short- and medium-term, only for the problems to appear in the long-term - and sometimes those problems are not necessarily due to the initial action, but subsequent inaction.
The subsidies the railways receive are higher than they ever were when they were nationalised. So my view is the improvements were from spending a lot more money, not because the private sector did a load of innovating.
To give a counterfactual, the NI trains were never privatised. They run fine. Same as London Underground.
Not massively higher. I'd have to check, but I *think*, once you take network enhancements out of the picture, that subsidy per passenger is down - at least pre-covid. (*)
"18. This work shows that the railway has been a victim of its own success. Increased demand for rail has led to new capital projects, increasing Network Rail's level of borrowing and the annual charges it must meet to pay for that borrowing. Increased passenger numbers have also fuelled demand for more, better quality rolling stock, which comes at a cost. Better facilities, and more reliable rail services, have generated more demand for rail travel. What in many ways is a virtuous circle has a vicious element - escalating cost."
(*) It can sometimes be hard to compare figures, as some charts and tables show things like HS2 and Crossrail included in the subsidy, whilst others do not.
But why is debt a bad thing when it's funding infrastructure improvements that result in productivity and economic boosts for the wider economy? A public service doesn't need to make money. .
Because it crowds out investment that would deliver much higher productivity and boosts for the wider economy.
The cost benefit ratio of many rail projects is extremely low (partial exceptions are London commuter rail and mass transit improvements). HS2 is now heavy negative.
The debt would be much better accumulated on corporate tax or payroll cuts, which generate the best productivity boost for each pound spent. Or, if we still want to spend it on infrastructure, road improvements around London do best I understand - some return £7 for each £ invested, compared to £2.50 for Crossrail 2 and about 60p for HS2.
The idea that we should spend money on roads over railways is absolutely laughable.
HS2 is heavy negative because we didn't get on build it. It got completely stuck by endless red tape and inquiries.
As usual, stop delaying, start building.
You seem very strong on your stance on building, but are you prepared to support the repeal of European nutrient neutrality regulations that are currently preventing 100,000 dwellings that *have* planning permission from being built? All because of the amount of poo that will go into rivers from the new houses - despite the fact that the same poo is going into rivers, because it doesn't matter if you live with your mum, you still poo?
Tried by the Tories, failed in the Lords, Gove then bottled it and shelved the bill.
Likewise, are you prepared to repeal EU species protection legislation if it turns out that this was at the basis of HS2's decision (using the advice of the quango Natural England) to build a £100mn bat tunnel?
Yes
I am glad to hear it. It will enrich our next 'Can someone name me a SINGLE BREXIT BENEFIT?' conversation.
Tongue somewhat in cheek, a paneuropean mindset can be helpful here. Why does it matter if Bat X or Newt Y is endangered here if there are shitloads of the same creature all across Europe...
We have the opposite problem in the UK with Great Crested Newts - rare in Europe, so protected, but in the UK you can find one under any rock you look under - which creates a challenge for developers, because it's dead easy to hold up development by finding newts that need rehousing.
I’m sure the odd NIMBY activist would not be averse at finding a few newts and moving them onto a development they object to.
One of my dearest Self-Building friends (German, used to fly microlights for fun, some background in special forces I think, now in the Lancashire back-of-beyond), suffered because they built on a plot next door his wife had owned since the 1980s - and his children in the 90s had spent their time importing Great Crested Newts from the local ponds for fun.
He had to built newt fences to keep them to the other end of the plot.
Norm Macdonald once claimed that Fox comes off his medication a couple of days before public appearences to maximise the money raised - now that's commitment.
I remember when stem cells were an issue he was accused of doing that.
She was also responsible for dragging this country back to being a country where you could do business rather than being ruled by unelected union barons, and where even removal services were run by unionised nationalised loss making industries.
Sadly the current bunch of incompetent economically illiterate numpties would like to take us back there.
She did some good things which I acknowledge. She was a strong and principled leader which I admire.
But she also did a lot of very bad things that have caused the problems we now face. Surely that can be acknowledged.
Like her policy on council housing.
The problem is that we have no counter-factuals. If she had not done these things, what state would the country been in?
Take rail privatisation: it gave us the safest and busiest rail network ever. Passenger numbers doubled. It's hard to call that an absolute failure, and I also find it hard to believe that the railways would have attracted the same investment if they had remained nationalised.
Also, sometimes people can do things that appear positive in the short- and medium-term, only for the problems to appear in the long-term - and sometimes those problems are not necessarily due to the initial action, but subsequent inaction.
The subsidies the railways receive are higher than they ever were when they were nationalised. So my view is the improvements were from spending a lot more money, not because the private sector did a load of innovating.
To give a counterfactual, the NI trains were never privatised. They run fine. Same as London Underground.
Not massively higher. I'd have to check, but I *think*, once you take network enhancements out of the picture, that subsidy per passenger is down - at least pre-covid. (*)
"18. This work shows that the railway has been a victim of its own success. Increased demand for rail has led to new capital projects, increasing Network Rail's level of borrowing and the annual charges it must meet to pay for that borrowing. Increased passenger numbers have also fuelled demand for more, better quality rolling stock, which comes at a cost. Better facilities, and more reliable rail services, have generated more demand for rail travel. What in many ways is a virtuous circle has a vicious element - escalating cost."
(*) It can sometimes be hard to compare figures, as some charts and tables show things like HS2 and Crossrail included in the subsidy, whilst others do not.
But why is debt a bad thing when it's funding infrastructure improvements that result in productivity and economic boosts for the wider economy? A public service doesn't need to make money. .
Because it crowds out investment that would deliver much higher productivity and boosts for the wider economy.
The cost benefit ratio of many rail projects is extremely low (partial exceptions are London commuter rail and mass transit improvements). HS2 is now heavy negative.
The debt would be much better accumulated on corporate tax or payroll cuts, which generate the best productivity boost for each pound spent. Or, if we still want to spend it on infrastructure, road improvements around London do best I understand - some return £7 for each £ invested, compared to £2.50 for Crossrail 2 and about 60p for HS2.
The idea that we should spend money on roads over railways is absolutely laughable.
HS2 is heavy negative because we didn't get on build it. It got completely stuck by endless red tape and inquiries.
As usual, stop delaying, start building.
You seem very strong on your stance on building, but are you prepared to support the repeal of European nutrient neutrality regulations that are currently preventing 100,000 dwellings that *have* planning permission from being built? All because of the amount of poo that will go into rivers from the new houses - despite the fact that the same poo is going into rivers, because it doesn't matter if you live with your mum, you still poo?
Tried by the Tories, failed in the Lords, Gove then bottled it and shelved the bill.
Likewise, are you prepared to repeal EU species protection legislation if it turns out that this was at the basis of HS2's decision (using the advice of the quango Natural England) to build a £100mn bat tunnel?
Yes
I am glad to hear it. It will enrich our next 'Can someone name me a SINGLE BREXIT BENEFIT?' conversation.
Tongue somewhat in cheek, a paneuropean mindset can be helpful here. Why does it matter if Bat X or Newt Y is endangered here if there are shitloads of the same creature all across Europe...
We have the opposite problem in the UK with Great Crested Newts - rare in Europe, so protected, but in the UK you can find one under any rock you look under - which creates a challenge for developers, because it's dead easy to hold up development by finding newts that need rehousing.
I’m sure the odd NIMBY activist would not be averse at finding a few newts and moving them onto a development they object to.
Did you miss my report of that actually happening?
Being a moron, the person in question dumped some newts from a pet place. An exotic non-native breed.
Being an double moron, she did this on a planned building site protected by CCTV, rolling up in her car, unmasked.
According to the chap I know in the area, who told the story, and her Farcebook page, they are looking at charging her with introducing a non-native species.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
Ludicrous to make her minister for corruption. Anyone could see that someone with close family ties to head of govt of country known to have lots of corruption was a glaring red flag.
Just seems like an unnecessary political risk, even if there was a high degree of confidence she personally had done nothing untoward. Must have been other jobs going.
Reminds me (in unnecessary risk terms at least) of when Sunak brought back Braverman as Home Secretary mere days after she resigned from the position - she needed to be rewarded for backing him, and he wanted to signal toughness in that role, but there must have been someone else who could do that and she could have had another very senior post as a reward.
Argy-bargy in Oldham. Leader of Conservative Group resigns.
The leader of Oldham Council's Conservative group has resigned after police were called following a heated council meeting.
The meeting on 18 December had to be adjourned after members of the public and councillors hurled abuse at each other following a debate about housing and planning.
Councillor Graham Sheldon, who has stepped down both as leader and as a member of the Conservative group, said he believed "the actions of two members of my group caused the mayhem and deterioration of the meeting". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ewj7d285no
As in: The Oldham Council meeting was adjourned after a heated debate centred around the "controversial" Places for Everyone * housing scheme.
Tensions rose to the point that members of the public and councillors were hurling abuse at each other and the acting borough solicitor, including references to "dictators" and "Nazi sympathisers". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1eldn0j7qgo
* This is the joint development plan across 9 out of 10 boroughs in Manchester.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
That was anti-democratic, but what you quoted wasn’t. It is in fact how the system of parliamentary democracy works.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
That was anti-democratic, but what you quoted wasn’t. It is in fact how the system of parliamentary democracy works.
If it was isolated “RobD” I could buy it but within the context of what he’s said all week, he clearly doesn’t believe in our democracy.
She was also responsible for dragging this country back to being a country where you could do business rather than being ruled by unelected union barons, and where even removal services were run by unionised nationalised loss making industries.
Sadly the current bunch of incompetent economically illiterate numpties would like to take us back there.
She did some good things which I acknowledge. She was a strong and principled leader which I admire.
But she also did a lot of very bad things that have caused the problems we now face. Surely that can be acknowledged.
Like her policy on council housing.
The problem is that we have no counter-factuals. If she had not done these things, what state would the country been in?
Take rail privatisation: it gave us the safest and busiest rail network ever. Passenger numbers doubled. It's hard to call that an absolute failure, and I also find it hard to believe that the railways would have attracted the same investment if they had remained nationalised.
Also, sometimes people can do things that appear positive in the short- and medium-term, only for the problems to appear in the long-term - and sometimes those problems are not necessarily due to the initial action, but subsequent inaction.
The subsidies the railways receive are higher than they ever were when they were nationalised. So my view is the improvements were from spending a lot more money, not because the private sector did a load of innovating.
To give a counterfactual, the NI trains were never privatised. They run fine. Same as London Underground.
Not massively higher. I'd have to check, but I *think*, once you take network enhancements out of the picture, that subsidy per passenger is down - at least pre-covid. (*)
"18. This work shows that the railway has been a victim of its own success. Increased demand for rail has led to new capital projects, increasing Network Rail's level of borrowing and the annual charges it must meet to pay for that borrowing. Increased passenger numbers have also fuelled demand for more, better quality rolling stock, which comes at a cost. Better facilities, and more reliable rail services, have generated more demand for rail travel. What in many ways is a virtuous circle has a vicious element - escalating cost."
(*) It can sometimes be hard to compare figures, as some charts and tables show things like HS2 and Crossrail included in the subsidy, whilst others do not.
But why is debt a bad thing when it's funding infrastructure improvements that result in productivity and economic boosts for the wider economy? A public service doesn't need to make money. .
Because it crowds out investment that would deliver much higher productivity and boosts for the wider economy.
The cost benefit ratio of many rail projects is extremely low (partial exceptions are London commuter rail and mass transit improvements). HS2 is now heavy negative.
The debt would be much better accumulated on corporate tax or payroll cuts, which generate the best productivity boost for each pound spent. Or, if we still want to spend it on infrastructure, road improvements around London do best I understand - some return £7 for each £ invested, compared to £2.50 for Crossrail 2 and about 60p for HS2.
The idea that we should spend money on roads over railways is absolutely laughable.
HS2 is heavy negative because we didn't get on build it. It got completely stuck by endless red tape and inquiries.
As usual, stop delaying, start building.
You seem very strong on your stance on building, but are you prepared to support the repeal of European nutrient neutrality regulations that are currently preventing 100,000 dwellings that *have* planning permission from being built? All because of the amount of poo that will go into rivers from the new houses - despite the fact that the same poo is going into rivers, because it doesn't matter if you live with your mum, you still poo?
Tried by the Tories, failed in the Lords, Gove then bottled it and shelved the bill.
Likewise, are you prepared to repeal EU species protection legislation if it turns out that this was at the basis of HS2's decision (using the advice of the quango Natural England) to build a £100mn bat tunnel?
Yes
I am glad to hear it. It will enrich our next 'Can someone name me a SINGLE BREXIT BENEFIT?' conversation.
Tongue somewhat in cheek, a paneuropean mindset can be helpful here. Why does it matter if Bat X or Newt Y is endangered here if there are shitloads of the same creature all across Europe...
We have the opposite problem in the UK with Great Crested Newts - rare in Europe, so protected, but in the UK you can find one under any rock you look under - which creates a challenge for developers, because it's dead easy to hold up development by finding newts that need rehousing.
I’m sure the odd NIMBY activist would not be averse at finding a few newts and moving them onto a development they object to.
Did you miss my report of that actually happening?
Being a moron, the person in question dumped some newts from a pet place. An exotic non-native breed.
Being an double moron, she did this on a planned building site protected by CCTV, rolling up in her car, unmasked.
According to the chap I know in the area, who told the story, and her Farcebook page, they are looking at charging her with introducing a non-native species.
It's a sad situation when most of the time you don't need to go that far to mess things up.
It's the insincerity that infuriates me with a lot of NIMBYs. You can see it very easily with the 'throw everything at the wall' approach to raising objections, any objections to see what sticks, usually with histrionic exaggerations, and jumping from reason A to reason B as each one is addressed in turn, and in particular the refusal to change their minds if the evidence does not support a particular objection strand.
That is the fundamental difference between someone raising legitimate concerns and NIMBYs, even as both will start out using the same arguments - the latter will never be mollified no matter what is done. As such, the system should not give them further ammunition by making it so easy.
She was also responsible for dragging this country back to being a country where you could do business rather than being ruled by unelected union barons, and where even removal services were run by unionised nationalised loss making industries.
Sadly the current bunch of incompetent economically illiterate numpties would like to take us back there.
She did some good things which I acknowledge. She was a strong and principled leader which I admire.
But she also did a lot of very bad things that have caused the problems we now face. Surely that can be acknowledged.
Like her policy on council housing.
The problem is that we have no counter-factuals. If she had not done these things, what state would the country been in?
Take rail privatisation: it gave us the safest and busiest rail network ever. Passenger numbers doubled. It's hard to call that an absolute failure, and I also find it hard to believe that the railways would have attracted the same investment if they had remained nationalised.
Also, sometimes people can do things that appear positive in the short- and medium-term, only for the problems to appear in the long-term - and sometimes those problems are not necessarily due to the initial action, but subsequent inaction.
The subsidies the railways receive are higher than they ever were when they were nationalised. So my view is the improvements were from spending a lot more money, not because the private sector did a load of innovating.
To give a counterfactual, the NI trains were never privatised. They run fine. Same as London Underground.
Not massively higher. I'd have to check, but I *think*, once you take network enhancements out of the picture, that subsidy per passenger is down - at least pre-covid. (*)
"18. This work shows that the railway has been a victim of its own success. Increased demand for rail has led to new capital projects, increasing Network Rail's level of borrowing and the annual charges it must meet to pay for that borrowing. Increased passenger numbers have also fuelled demand for more, better quality rolling stock, which comes at a cost. Better facilities, and more reliable rail services, have generated more demand for rail travel. What in many ways is a virtuous circle has a vicious element - escalating cost."
(*) It can sometimes be hard to compare figures, as some charts and tables show things like HS2 and Crossrail included in the subsidy, whilst others do not.
But why is debt a bad thing when it's funding infrastructure improvements that result in productivity and economic boosts for the wider economy? A public service doesn't need to make money. .
Because it crowds out investment that would deliver much higher productivity and boosts for the wider economy.
The cost benefit ratio of many rail projects is extremely low (partial exceptions are London commuter rail and mass transit improvements). HS2 is now heavy negative.
The debt would be much better accumulated on corporate tax or payroll cuts, which generate the best productivity boost for each pound spent. Or, if we still want to spend it on infrastructure, road improvements around London do best I understand - some return £7 for each £ invested, compared to £2.50 for Crossrail 2 and about 60p for HS2.
The idea that we should spend money on roads over railways is absolutely laughable.
HS2 is heavy negative because we didn't get on build it. It got completely stuck by endless red tape and inquiries.
As usual, stop delaying, start building.
You seem very strong on your stance on building, but are you prepared to support the repeal of European nutrient neutrality regulations that are currently preventing 100,000 dwellings that *have* planning permission from being built? All because of the amount of poo that will go into rivers from the new houses - despite the fact that the same poo is going into rivers, because it doesn't matter if you live with your mum, you still poo?
Tried by the Tories, failed in the Lords, Gove then bottled it and shelved the bill.
Likewise, are you prepared to repeal EU species protection legislation if it turns out that this was at the basis of HS2's decision (using the advice of the quango Natural England) to build a £100mn bat tunnel?
Yes
I am glad to hear it. It will enrich our next 'Can someone name me a SINGLE BREXIT BENEFIT?' conversation.
Tongue somewhat in cheek, a paneuropean mindset can be helpful here. Why does it matter if Bat X or Newt Y is endangered here if there are shitloads of the same creature all across Europe...
We have the opposite problem in the UK with Great Crested Newts - rare in Europe, so protected, but in the UK you can find one under any rock you look under - which creates a challenge for developers, because it's dead easy to hold up development by finding newts that need rehousing.
I’m sure the odd NIMBY activist would not be averse at finding a few newts and moving them onto a development they object to.
Did you miss my report of that actually happening?
Being a moron, the person in question dumped some newts from a pet place. An exotic non-native breed.
Being an double moron, she did this on a planned building site protected by CCTV, rolling up in her car, unmasked.
According to the chap I know in the area, who told the story, and her Farcebook page, they are looking at charging her with introducing a non-native species.
No, didn’t see your report of it.
What an idiot.
I do hope they charge her as actions like that can have dire consequences for native species and to send a message to others thinking of it.
This will be tempting for a lot of failed Tories - at the moment, being a Reform candidate offers a far better chance of getting back into parliament than being a Tory one. And the earlier you do it, the better your chance of getting a plum position.
The attraction for Reform (beyond a bit of publicity) is that it gets viable, experienced candidates (if not earth-shattering ones). Though they need to be careful not to become a retirement home for failed Tories.
Braverman or Truss going over if the trends stay the same wouldn't surprise me. Though Truss is by way of damaged goods (unfairly in my opinion).
Truss? Why on earth would Reform want Truss?
Profile. Yes there's the question of how people remember her, and that blowing back on them if she switched, but on balance it'd probably still work out positively.
Ok, let’s Red Team this. Truss joins Reform and tells the world that The Blob are the people who stopped her, and she’s joined Reform because the Nigel is the only person who can smash the blob so that we can bring about Real Change.
It would be very very hard to get past the clear damage she did to our economy. And harder still to get past the lettuce. Even with Muskybaby doing her PR
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
That was anti-democratic, but what you quoted wasn’t. It is in fact how the system of parliamentary democracy works.
If it was isolated “RobD” I could buy it but within the context of what he’s said all week, he clearly doesn’t believe in our democracy.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
If Musk was saying "Starmer is the best UK PM I've ever seen", I bet you'd be just as vociferously sgainst him
I wonder what the now departed Foxy would have made of these stickers today. The sort of thing I would have expected at a soccer game in the seventies or early eighties not today.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
If Musk was saying "Starmer is the best UK PM I've ever seen", I bet you'd be just as vociferously sgainst him
No I’d be saying he should stay out of our democracy.
Argy-bargy in Oldham. Leader of Conservative Group resigns.
The leader of Oldham Council's Conservative group has resigned after police were called following a heated council meeting.
The meeting on 18 December had to be adjourned after members of the public and councillors hurled abuse at each other following a debate about housing and planning.
Councillor Graham Sheldon, who has stepped down both as leader and as a member of the Conservative group, said he believed "the actions of two members of my group caused the mayhem and deterioration of the meeting". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ewj7d285no
As in: The Oldham Council meeting was adjourned after a heated debate centred around the "controversial" Places for Everyone * housing scheme.
Tensions rose to the point that members of the public and councillors were hurling abuse at each other and the acting borough solicitor, including references to "dictators" and "Nazi sympathisers". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1eldn0j7qgo
* This is the joint development plan across 9 out of 10 boroughs in Manchester.
Spicy stuff
Tensions rose to the point that members of the public and councillors were hurling abuse at each other and the acting borough solicitor, including references to "dictators" and "Nazi sympathisers"
It's not twitter lads (It's usually men with this type of thing), calm it down.
This will be tempting for a lot of failed Tories - at the moment, being a Reform candidate offers a far better chance of getting back into parliament than being a Tory one. And the earlier you do it, the better your chance of getting a plum position.
The attraction for Reform (beyond a bit of publicity) is that it gets viable, experienced candidates (if not earth-shattering ones). Though they need to be careful not to become a retirement home for failed Tories.
Braverman or Truss going over if the trends stay the same wouldn't surprise me. Though Truss is by way of damaged goods (unfairly in my opinion).
Truss? Why on earth would Reform want Truss?
Profile. Yes there's the question of how people remember her, and that blowing back on them if she switched, but on balance it'd probably still work out positively.
Ok, let’s Red Team this. Truss joins Reform and tells the world that The Blob are the people who stopped her, and she’s joined Reform because the Nigel is the only person who can smash the blob so that we can bring about Real Change.
It would be very very hard to get past the clear damage she did to our economy. And harder still to get past the lettuce. Even with Muskybaby doing her PR
My reasoning is such that I am not as optimistic on Reform's ceiling of support as it itself is, and therefore I think the minority of opinion still sympathetic to Truss may, in fortunate circumstance, still be just slightly higher than they get now.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
If Musk was saying "Starmer is the best UK PM I've ever seen", I bet you'd be just as vociferously sgainst him
No I’d be saying he should stay out of our democracy.
But we now know what you think.
All of you, cbh hbc bhc chb hcb and bch, haven't got the got the tiniest fucking clue what I think
This will be tempting for a lot of failed Tories - at the moment, being a Reform candidate offers a far better chance of getting back into parliament than being a Tory one. And the earlier you do it, the better your chance of getting a plum position.
The attraction for Reform (beyond a bit of publicity) is that it gets viable, experienced candidates (if not earth-shattering ones). Though they need to be careful not to become a retirement home for failed Tories.
Braverman or Truss going over if the trends stay the same wouldn't surprise me. Though Truss is by way of damaged goods (unfairly in my opinion).
Especially tempting in a place like Dudley which is ripe for Reform. I’d think he has a better chance as a Reform candidate than a Tory one there next time out.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
If Musk was saying "Starmer is the best UK PM I've ever seen", I bet you'd be just as vociferously sgainst him
No I’d be saying he should stay out of our democracy.
But we now know what you think.
Those of us who are disgusted by Musk can take two active steps. Don’t use X. Don’t buy a Tesla.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
I had read that normal hearing aids tended to be quite expensive, so there might not be all that much cost differential. Having some competition in that area might both improve quality and reduce prices.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
If Musk was saying "Starmer is the best UK PM I've ever seen", I bet you'd be just as vociferously sgainst him
No I’d be saying he should stay out of our democracy.
But we now know what you think.
All of you, cbh hbc bhc chb hcb and bch, haven't got the got the tiniest fucking clue what I think
Yawn. Totally unnecessary abuse and language as usual. Back to the ignore list for you.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
It’s to do with the microphones and earpieces inside them being very high grade. And Apple has done work on low latency to get them to work effectively. So it’s not as easy as you make out.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
I wonder what the now departed Foxy would have made of these stickers today. The sort of thing I would have expected at a soccer game in the seventies or early eighties not today.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
Apple did a lot of work on making AirPods certifiable for hearing aid usage.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
If Musk was saying "Starmer is the best UK PM I've ever seen", I bet you'd be just as vociferously sgainst him
No I’d be saying he should stay out of our democracy.
But we now know what you think.
If Musk had been invited to Labours Growth Meeting and Starmer had licked his ass like Sunak did Musk would be saying pretty much that.
Thats why this meglomaniac nutter is best ignored like any bully.
If I was Starmer I'd be saying I have absolutely no interest in what Musk says as I want to get on with serious politics
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
If Musk was saying "Starmer is the best UK PM I've ever seen", I bet you'd be just as vociferously sgainst him
No I’d be saying he should stay out of our democracy.
But we now know what you think.
If Musk had been invited to Labours Growth Meeting and Starmer had licked his ass like Sunak did Musk would be saying pretty much that.
Thats why this meglomaniac nutter is best ignored like any bully.
If I was Starmer I'd be saying I have absolutely no interest in what Musk says as I want to get on with serious politics
As I said before, Musk convinced me himself to pull out of Tesla. Because he's clearly too much of a loose cannon/hates his own customers/is distracted, to not accidentally run the company into the ground.
As well as self-driving being as far away as ever (despite his lies that it's coming every year since 2012), I just can't see how Tesla isn't easily replaced by any of the Chinese companies or another established manufacturer.
I put my money where my mouth is and sold up.
The fact that Musk appears to believe, and act on the belief, that there can and will be viable long term human communities living on Mars in not all that long suggests that he may well be less good at thinking through some things than others.
He also believed in electric cars when few others did
He had a lot of success with Tesla. I said so above.
He should have stuck to that. It’s why I find his stance on net zero the more strange.
You used Mars as an example of why he was less good at thinking through some issues. I suspect his Mars plans won’t work. But he was right on Tesla and I wasn’t.
I didn’t cite Mars.
The comment I was replying to did - it was @algarkirk not you, so apologies for any confusion
As I said before, Musk convinced me himself to pull out of Tesla. Because he's clearly too much of a loose cannon/hates his own customers/is distracted, to not accidentally run the company into the ground.
As well as self-driving being as far away as ever (despite his lies that it's coming every year since 2012), I just can't see how Tesla isn't easily replaced by any of the Chinese companies or another established manufacturer.
I put my money where my mouth is and sold up.
The fact that Musk appears to believe, and act on the belief, that there can and will be viable long term human communities living on Mars in not all that long suggests that he may well be less good at thinking through some things than others.
He also believed in electric cars when few others did
He had a lot of success with Tesla. I said so above.
He should have stuck to that. It’s why I find his stance on net zero the more strange.
You used Mars as an example of why he was less good at thinking through some issues. I suspect his Mars plans won’t work. But he was right on Tesla and I wasn’t.
I didn’t cite Mars.
The comment I was replying to did - it was @algarkirk not you, so apologies for any confusion
He was right on Tesla. But that’s so long ago now, I’m afraid I’ve lost all confidence in him.
She was also responsible for dragging this country back to being a country where you could do business rather than being ruled by unelected union barons, and where even removal services were run by unionised nationalised loss making industries.
Sadly the current bunch of incompetent economically illiterate numpties would like to take us back there.
She did some good things which I acknowledge. She was a strong and principled leader which I admire.
But she also did a lot of very bad things that have caused the problems we now face. Surely that can be acknowledged.
Like her policy on council housing.
The problem is that we have no counter-factuals. If she had not done these things, what state would the country been in?
Take rail privatisation: it gave us the safest and busiest rail network ever. Passenger numbers doubled. It's hard to call that an absolute failure, and I also find it hard to believe that the railways would have attracted the same investment if they had remained nationalised.
Also, sometimes people can do things that appear positive in the short- and medium-term, only for the problems to appear in the long-term - and sometimes those problems are not necessarily due to the initial action, but subsequent inaction.
The subsidies the railways receive are higher than they ever were when they were nationalised. So my view is the improvements were from spending a lot more money, not because the private sector did a load of innovating.
To give a counterfactual, the NI trains were never privatised. They run fine. Same as London Underground.
Not massively higher. I'd have to check, but I *think*, once you take network enhancements out of the picture, that subsidy per passenger is down - at least pre-covid. (*)
"18. This work shows that the railway has been a victim of its own success. Increased demand for rail has led to new capital projects, increasing Network Rail's level of borrowing and the annual charges it must meet to pay for that borrowing. Increased passenger numbers have also fuelled demand for more, better quality rolling stock, which comes at a cost. Better facilities, and more reliable rail services, have generated more demand for rail travel. What in many ways is a virtuous circle has a vicious element - escalating cost."
(*) It can sometimes be hard to compare figures, as some charts and tables show things like HS2 and Crossrail included in the subsidy, whilst others do not.
But why is debt a bad thing when it's funding infrastructure improvements that result in productivity and economic boosts for the wider economy? A public service doesn't need to make money. .
Because it crowds out investment that would deliver much higher productivity and boosts for the wider economy.
The cost benefit ratio of many rail projects is extremely low (partial exceptions are London commuter rail and mass transit improvements). HS2 is now heavy negative.
The debt would be much better accumulated on corporate tax or payroll cuts, which generate the best productivity boost for each pound spent. Or, if we still want to spend it on infrastructure, road improvements around London do best I understand - some return £7 for each £ invested, compared to £2.50 for Crossrail 2 and about 60p for HS2.
The idea that we should spend money on roads over railways is absolutely laughable.
HS2 is heavy negative because we didn't get on build it. It got completely stuck by endless red tape and inquiries.
As usual, stop delaying, start building.
You seem very strong on your stance on building, but are you prepared to support the repeal of European nutrient neutrality regulations that are currently preventing 100,000 dwellings that *have* planning permission from being built? All because of the amount of poo that will go into rivers from the new houses - despite the fact that the same poo is going into rivers, because it doesn't matter if you live with your mum, you still poo?
Tried by the Tories, failed in the Lords, Gove then bottled it and shelved the bill.
Likewise, are you prepared to repeal EU species protection legislation if it turns out that this was at the basis of HS2's decision (using the advice of the quango Natural England) to build a £100mn bat tunnel?
Yes
I am glad to hear it. It will enrich our next 'Can someone name me a SINGLE BREXIT BENEFIT?' conversation.
I don’t think I’ve ever said there aren’t any Brexit benefits. Just that they are essentially fairly trivial.
Yes, I'll stick up for Horse here - AFAIR he tends to not particularly value the benefits of Brexit rather than deny their existence like some. A reasonable position, if not one I agree with.
I think most PB remainers (Scott being an obvious exception) would acknowledge there are *some* benefits to being outside the EU. It's just the costs massively outweigh the benefits, particularly when other options for increasing trade elsewhere (US, China, India) are unviable and are even considered by PB leavers to be so.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
Apple did a lot of work on making AirPods certifiable for hearing aid usage.
Here you are. I looked into it for my Dad but you couldn’t get them subsidised.
That's very limited - on the face of matters, essentially for folk growing older even if it works as they claim (NB: that's not an independent assessment). No good for the profoundly deaf or children. And a very DIY approach even with an audiogram.
No independent health check, either, to see just what the problem is (in case it is something worse).
And no loop system either.
And not approved in the UK yet. No sign of any report on RNID yet but those things take time.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
Apple did a lot of work on making AirPods certifiable for hearing aid usage.
Here you are. I looked into it for my Dad but you couldn’t get them subsidised.
PS NHS hearing aids are generally decent, anyway, and free. I had to deal with an eldferly relative who was completely convinced that NHS hearing aids were crap (from wehat he had heard c. 50 years ago) and ended up wasting 5K on a couple of hearing aids from some private salesman.
I wonder what the now departed Foxy would have made of these stickers today. The sort of thing I would have expected at a soccer game in the seventies or early eighties not today.
I wonder what the now departed Foxy would have made of these stickers today. The sort of thing I would have expected at a soccer game in the seventies or early eighties not today.
Has Foxy gone?
Ravaged by the New Year's Day Hunt?
If that is an euphemism for the pack howling on PB at the moment ... [sorry, not thinking] I mean these days, not this very hour/minute.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
Apple did a lot of work on making AirPods certifiable for hearing aid usage.
I wonder what the now departed Foxy would have made of these stickers today. The sort of thing I would have expected at a soccer game in the seventies or early eighties not today.
Has Foxy gone?
Ravaged by the New Year's Day Hunt?
If that is an euphemism for the pack howling on PB at the moment ...
There was quite a lot of barking at the moon last evening.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
Apple did a lot of work on making AirPods certifiable for hearing aid usage.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
If Musk was saying "Starmer is the best UK PM I've ever seen", I bet you'd be just as vociferously sgainst him
No I’d be saying he should stay out of our democracy.
But we now know what you think.
All of you, cbh hbc bhc chb hcb and bch, haven't got the got the tiniest fucking clue what I think
Yawn. Totally unnecessary abuse and language as usual. Back to the ignore list for you.
I'll still be keenly following your endless posts about why PB is less interesting for you these days, don't you worry
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
Apple did a lot of work on making AirPods certifiable for hearing aid usage.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
But I really hope @Foxy will return. One of the best posters here and always polite and good to talk to about a variety of things. We are poorer without him.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
If Musk was saying "Starmer is the best UK PM I've ever seen", I bet you'd be just as vociferously sgainst him
No I’d be saying he should stay out of our democracy.
But we now know what you think.
If Musk had been invited to Labours Growth Meeting and Starmer had licked his ass like Sunak did Musk would be saying pretty much that.
Thats why this meglomaniac nutter is best ignored like any bully.
If I was Starmer I'd be saying I have absolutely no interest in what Musk says as I want to get on with serious politics
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
That was anti-democratic, but what you quoted wasn’t. It is in fact how the system of parliamentary democracy works.
I’m not sure that dissolving parliament and having new elections is antidemocratic either.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
Apple did a lot of work on making AirPods certifiable for hearing aid usage.
Here you are. I looked into it for my Dad but you couldn’t get them subsidised.
£11 per month with Paypal Credit. But better if they could be on the NHS - saves money on free NHS hearing aid batteries for a start.
Almost as bad as printer cartridge ink for price per volume.
Makes you wonder why anyone even bothers with the illegal drug trade when they could simply invest in that racket instead.
No wonder I am so overjoyed with my ink tank printer. 18K x A4 equivalent in 3 years so I'm quids in and increasingly so the more I use it. I suppose it's the financial erquivalent of growing your own cannabis in the back garden.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
If Musk was saying "Starmer is the best UK PM I've ever seen", I bet you'd be just as vociferously sgainst him
No I’d be saying he should stay out of our democracy.
But we now know what you think.
If Musk had been invited to Labours Growth Meeting and Starmer had licked his ass like Sunak did Musk would be saying pretty much that.
Thats why this meglomaniac nutter is best ignored like any bully.
If I was Starmer I'd be saying I have absolutely no interest in what Musk says as I want to get on with serious politics
Are you a Labour staffer?
No
Nor a Labour Party Member
Are you prepared to tell us who you were when you were a member before?
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
That was anti-democratic, but what you quoted wasn’t. It is in fact how the system of parliamentary democracy works.
I’m not sure that dissolving parliament and having new elections is antidemocratic either.
That clearly is, there are no justifiable reasons for the King to do so at the moment.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
They won’t stay in my ears (not that I need them as hearing aids) so I buy ones that clip to the ear.
Question to the forum? Am I alone? Do I have freak ears? Is there a solution?
Go down to the tattoo place and get a hole drilled, with a complementary hole in the airbud and a plastic rivet thingy?
Seriously, that's another possible reason not to use then as hearing aids if the bloody things don't stay in. Anotdher is that they can't amplify sound very much if their fit is loose/crap because of the feedback you get if there is the merest gap.
But I really hope Foxy will return. One of the best posters here and always polite and good to talk to about a variety of things. We are poorer without him.
No idea what happened, but that sounds very unfortunate.
But I really hope @Foxy will return. One of the best posters here and always polite and good to talk to about a variety of things. We are poorer without him.
Some people can't handle any sort of discussion of the racist paedophile rape gangs that doesn't somehow blame the far right
You may not have seen TSE's post, but he's asked us not to discuss that topic today.
She was also responsible for dragging this country back to being a country where you could do business rather than being ruled by unelected union barons, and where even removal services were run by unionised nationalised loss making industries.
Sadly the current bunch of incompetent economically illiterate numpties would like to take us back there.
She did some good things which I acknowledge. She was a strong and principled leader which I admire.
But she also did a lot of very bad things that have caused the problems we now face. Surely that can be acknowledged.
Like her policy on council housing.
The problem is that we have no counter-factuals. If she had not done these things, what state would the country been in?
Take rail privatisation: it gave us the safest and busiest rail network ever. Passenger numbers doubled. It's hard to call that an absolute failure, and I also find it hard to believe that the railways would have attracted the same investment if they had remained nationalised.
Also, sometimes people can do things that appear positive in the short- and medium-term, only for the problems to appear in the long-term - and sometimes those problems are not necessarily due to the initial action, but subsequent inaction.
The subsidies the railways receive are higher than they ever were when they were nationalised. So my view is the improvements were from spending a lot more money, not because the private sector did a load of innovating.
To give a counterfactual, the NI trains were never privatised. They run fine. Same as London Underground.
Not massively higher. I'd have to check, but I *think*, once you take network enhancements out of the picture, that subsidy per passenger is down - at least pre-covid. (*)
"18. This work shows that the railway has been a victim of its own success. Increased demand for rail has led to new capital projects, increasing Network Rail's level of borrowing and the annual charges it must meet to pay for that borrowing. Increased passenger numbers have also fuelled demand for more, better quality rolling stock, which comes at a cost. Better facilities, and more reliable rail services, have generated more demand for rail travel. What in many ways is a virtuous circle has a vicious element - escalating cost."
(*) It can sometimes be hard to compare figures, as some charts and tables show things like HS2 and Crossrail included in the subsidy, whilst others do not.
But why is debt a bad thing when it's funding infrastructure improvements that result in productivity and economic boosts for the wider economy? A public service doesn't need to make money. .
Because it crowds out investment that would deliver much higher productivity and boosts for the wider economy.
The cost benefit ratio of many rail projects is extremely low (partial exceptions are London commuter rail and mass transit improvements). HS2 is now heavy negative.
The debt would be much better accumulated on corporate tax or payroll cuts, which generate the best productivity boost for each pound spent. Or, if we still want to spend it on infrastructure, road improvements around London do best I understand - some return £7 for each £ invested, compared to £2.50 for Crossrail 2 and about 60p for HS2.
The idea that we should spend money on roads over railways is absolutely laughable.
HS2 is heavy negative because we didn't get on build it. It got completely stuck by endless red tape and inquiries.
As usual, stop delaying, start building.
You seem very strong on your stance on building, but are you prepared to support the repeal of European nutrient neutrality regulations that are currently preventing 100,000 dwellings that *have* planning permission from being built? All because of the amount of poo that will go into rivers from the new houses - despite the fact that the same poo is going into rivers, because it doesn't matter if you live with your mum, you still poo?
Tried by the Tories, failed in the Lords, Gove then bottled it and shelved the bill.
Likewise, are you prepared to repeal EU species protection legislation if it turns out that this was at the basis of HS2's decision (using the advice of the quango Natural England) to build a £100mn bat tunnel?
Yes
I am glad to hear it. It will enrich our next 'Can someone name me a SINGLE BREXIT BENEFIT?' conversation.
Tongue somewhat in cheek, a paneuropean mindset can be helpful here. Why does it matter if Bat X or Newt Y is endangered here if there are shitloads of the same creature all across Europe...
We have the opposite problem in the UK with Great Crested Newts - rare in Europe, so protected, but in the UK you can find one under any rock you look under - which creates a challenge for developers, because it's dead easy to hold up development by finding newts that need rehousing.
I’m sure the odd NIMBY activist would not be averse at finding a few newts and moving them onto a development they object to.
Did you miss my report of that actually happening?
Being a moron, the person in question dumped some newts from a pet place. An exotic non-native breed.
Being an double moron, she did this on a planned building site protected by CCTV, rolling up in her car, unmasked.
According to the chap I know in the area, who told the story, and her Farcebook page, they are looking at charging her with introducing a non-native species.
No, didn’t see your report of it.
What an idiot.
I do hope they charge her as actions like that can have dire consequences for native species and to send a message to others thinking of it.
What made it special was her extension of the personal self righteousness to her actions - according to her Facebook page what she did was right and praiseworthy. Because she was an awesome person. According to her.
It was the rounded perfection of her self-love that struck me. Not the slightest scratch.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
That was anti-democratic, but what you quoted wasn’t. It is in fact how the system of parliamentary democracy works.
I’m not sure that dissolving parliament and having new elections is antidemocratic either.
That clearly is, there are no justifiable reasons for the King to do so at the moment.
The King in the past has supported such undemocratic behaviour, it is why Musk made the appeal.
The King will not save us, just like the Queen did not save us during the prorogation crisis.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
If Musk was saying "Starmer is the best UK PM I've ever seen", I bet you'd be just as vociferously sgainst him
No I’d be saying he should stay out of our democracy.
But we now know what you think.
If Musk had been invited to Labours Growth Meeting and Starmer had licked his ass like Sunak did Musk would be saying pretty much that.
Thats why this meglomaniac nutter is best ignored like any bully.
If I was Starmer I'd be saying I have absolutely no interest in what Musk says as I want to get on with serious politics
Are you a Labour staffer?
No
Nor a Labour Party Member
Are you prepared to tell us who you were when you were a member before?
I've never been a member here before.
I used solely Gmail and never received verification notifications
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
That was anti-democratic, but what you quoted wasn’t. It is in fact how the system of parliamentary democracy works.
I’m not sure that dissolving parliament and having new elections is antidemocratic either.
That clearly is, there are no justifiable reasons for the King to do so at the moment.
Sure, an election is by definition democratic, but randomly calling for new elections very soon after the last one because of not liking the current government is motivated by partisan feeling, not democratic feeling.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
They won’t stay in my ears (not that I need them as hearing aids) so I buy ones that clip to the ear.
Question to the forum? Am I alone? Do I have freak ears? Is there a solution?
Go down to the tattoo place and get a hole drilled, with a complementary hole in the airbud and a plastic rivet thingy?
Seriously, that's another possible reason not to use then as hearing aids if the bloody things don't stay in. Anotdher is that they can't amplify sound very much if their fit is loose/crap because of the feedback you get if there is the merest gap.
Apple earbuds have always worked very well for a subset of ear shapes and fairly terribly for everyone else.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
That was anti-democratic, but what you quoted wasn’t. It is in fact how the system of parliamentary democracy works.
I’m not sure that dissolving parliament and having new elections is antidemocratic either.
That clearly is, there are no justifiable reasons for the King to do so at the moment.
The King in the past has supported such undemocratic behaviour, it is why Musk made the appeal.
The King will not save us, just like the Queen did not save us during the prorogation crisis.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
That was anti-democratic, but what you quoted wasn’t. It is in fact how the system of parliamentary democracy works.
I’m not sure that dissolving parliament and having new elections is antidemocratic either.
That clearly is, there are no justifiable reasons for the King to do so at the moment.
Sure, an election is by definition democratic, but randomly calling for new elections very soon after the last one because of not liking the current government is motivated by partisan feeling, not democratic feeling.
Kinda like the EU and the repeated referendums until they get the result they like.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
Apple did a lot of work on making AirPods certifiable for hearing aid usage.
Here you are. I looked into it for my Dad but you couldn’t get them subsidised.
£11 per month with Paypal Credit. But better if they could be on the NHS - saves money on free NHS hearing aid batteries for a start.
Almost as bad as printer cartridge ink for price per volume.
Makes you wonder why anyone even bothers with the illegal drug trade when they could simply invest in that racket instead.
No wonder I am so overjoyed with my ink tank printer. 18K x A4 equivalent in 3 years so I'm quids in and increasingly so the more I use it. I suppose it's the financial erquivalent of growing your own cannabis in the back garden.
On the hearing aids - one of the people I row with uses some non-apple earphones. One that you can customise the behaviour via a phone app - frequency responses etc.
She says that they much more user friendly than "real" hearing aids.
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
That was anti-democratic, but what you quoted wasn’t. It is in fact how the system of parliamentary democracy works.
I’m not sure that dissolving parliament and having new elections is antidemocratic either.
That clearly is, there are no justifiable reasons for the King to do so at the moment.
The King in the past has supported such undemocratic behaviour, it is why Musk made the appeal.
The King will not save us, just like the Queen did not save us during the prorogation crisis.
I'm sure someone has @'d him innumerable political details on twitter which he will have instantly believed, regardless of whether they are true or not, so it might possibly have slipped in there.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
Apple did a lot of work on making AirPods certifiable for hearing aid usage.
Here you are. I looked into it for my Dad but you couldn’t get them subsidised.
£11 per month with Paypal Credit. But better if they could be on the NHS - saves money on free NHS hearing aid batteries for a start.
Almost as bad as printer cartridge ink for price per volume.
Makes you wonder why anyone even bothers with the illegal drug trade when they could simply invest in that racket instead.
No wonder I am so overjoyed with my ink tank printer. 18K x A4 equivalent in 3 years so I'm quids in and increasingly so the more I use it. I suppose it's the financial erquivalent of growing your own cannabis in the back garden.
On the hearing aids - one of the people I row with uses some non-apple earphones. One that you can customise the behaviour via a phone app - frequency responses etc.
She says that they much more user friendly than "real" hearing aids.
Hmm, maybe a generation thing? Will be interesting to see what happens.
Are people seriously predicting Labour polls 35% this year? How?
When 40000 are repatriated on flights out and less than 20000 arrive on boats
When interest rate falls reduce Mortgage Fixed Rates to below 4%
When Reform blow apart with interference from Musk and Robinson
When Kemi is shown to be totally our if her depth.
When will these things happen?
Is that 40,000 in total? Doesn’t seem like very many?
13000 have gone since July..
I expect 40000 in 2025
I anticipate fewer arriving.
Now we know that the figures are just statistics but if Labour can say for the first time since 2019 we've repatriated more out than on 2 fold it a very powerful nessage
"If we really want Keir Starmer out of 10 Downing Street, we need to push our local MPs to initiate a vote of No Confidence."
"Yes"
Radicalised and anti-democratic, God help us all.
That’s not anti-democratic. It’s the way our system works. MPs chose the PM
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
He called for the King to dissolve Parliament.
That was anti-democratic, but what you quoted wasn’t. It is in fact how the system of parliamentary democracy works.
I’m not sure that dissolving parliament and having new elections is antidemocratic either.
That clearly is, there are no justifiable reasons for the King to do so at the moment.
Sure, an election is by definition democratic, but randomly calling for new elections very soon after the last one because of not liking the current government is motivated by partisan feeling, not democratic feeling.
Kinda like the EU and the repeated referendums until they get the result they like.
Fair point. I don't think confirmatory referendums are inherently wrong, but you'd need to lay out that that would be the process beforehand, or need additional democratic (through an election) endorsement to do any kind of comfirmation/rerun acceptably (which is what I supported in 2019), otherwise you really are just not wanting to enforce a result.
But I really hope @Foxy will return. One of the best posters here and always polite and good to talk to about a variety of things. We are poorer without him.
Some people can't handle any sort of discussion of the racist paedophile rape gangs that doesn't somehow blame the far right
You may not have seen TSE's post, but he's asked us not to discuss that topic today.
But I really hope @Foxy will return. One of the best posters here and always polite and good to talk to about a variety of things. We are poorer without him.
Some people can't handle any sort of discussion of the racist paedophile rape gangs that doesn't somehow blame the far right
You may not have seen TSE's post, but he's asked us not to discuss that topic today.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
Apple did a lot of work on making AirPods certifiable for hearing aid usage.
Here you are. I looked into it for my Dad but you couldn’t get them subsidised.
£11 per month with Paypal Credit. But better if they could be on the NHS - saves money on free NHS hearing aid batteries for a start.
Almost as bad as printer cartridge ink for price per volume.
Makes you wonder why anyone even bothers with the illegal drug trade when they could simply invest in that racket instead.
No wonder I am so overjoyed with my ink tank printer. 18K x A4 equivalent in 3 years so I'm quids in and increasingly so the more I use it. I suppose it's the financial erquivalent of growing your own cannabis in the back garden.
On the hearing aids - one of the people I row with uses some non-apple earphones. One that you can customise the behaviour via a phone app - frequency responses etc.
She says that they much more user friendly than "real" hearing aids.
I misunderstood "row with" on reading that. I mean, I'd want earplugs too.
But I really hope @Foxy will return. One of the best posters here and always polite and good to talk to about a variety of things. We are poorer without him.
Some people can't handle any sort of discussion of the racist paedophile rape gangs that doesn't somehow blame the far right
You may not have seen TSE's post, but he's asked us not to discuss that topic today.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
Apple did a lot of work on making AirPods certifiable for hearing aid usage.
Here you are. I looked into it for my Dad but you couldn’t get them subsidised.
£11 per month with Paypal Credit. But better if they could be on the NHS - saves money on free NHS hearing aid batteries for a start.
Almost as bad as printer cartridge ink for price per volume.
Makes you wonder why anyone even bothers with the illegal drug trade when they could simply invest in that racket instead.
No wonder I am so overjoyed with my ink tank printer. 18K x A4 equivalent in 3 years so I'm quids in and increasingly so the more I use it. I suppose it's the financial erquivalent of growing your own cannabis in the back garden.
On the hearing aids - one of the people I row with uses some non-apple earphones. One that you can customise the behaviour via a phone app - frequency responses etc.
She says that they much more user friendly than "real" hearing aids.
Hmm, maybe a generation thing? Will be interesting to see what happens.
I would suspect it is the technology moving faster than the bureaucracy.
Even a few years ago, a hyper responsive miniaturised microphone/earpiece setup, with customisable frequency response and battery life of days, was advanced tech.
Now you can buy that stuff on Amazon.
I'll bet money, that if I dig around, there is a whole sub-culture of hearing impaired people (probably on Reddit) modding headphones, writing code, swapping ideas on the best ones etc.
"The street finds its own uses for things" was a brilliant line from Gibson. So true.
But I really hope @Foxy will return. One of the best posters here and always polite and good to talk to about a variety of things. We are poorer without him.
Some people can't handle any sort of discussion of the racist paedophile rape gangs that doesn't somehow blame the far right
You may not have seen TSE's post, but he's asked us not to discuss that topic today.
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
Given that there's a premium on Apple products, if they are such handy dandy hearing aids, wouldn't it be cheaper to use generic 'airpods' (which must be on the market)??
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
IANAE but airpods would need to be quite complex to deal with what a lot of hearing aids have to do, given that tyhe degree of deafness is highly frequency-dependent. So you *don't* want perfect reproduction, but rather the ability to adjust for U- or L- or ski slope type audiograms.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
Apple did a lot of work on making AirPods certifiable for hearing aid usage.
Here you are. I looked into it for my Dad but you couldn’t get them subsidised.
£11 per month with Paypal Credit. But better if they could be on the NHS - saves money on free NHS hearing aid batteries for a start.
Almost as bad as printer cartridge ink for price per volume.
Makes you wonder why anyone even bothers with the illegal drug trade when they could simply invest in that racket instead.
No wonder I am so overjoyed with my ink tank printer. 18K x A4 equivalent in 3 years so I'm quids in and increasingly so the more I use it. I suppose it's the financial erquivalent of growing your own cannabis in the back garden.
On the hearing aids - one of the people I row with uses some non-apple earphones. One that you can customise the behaviour via a phone app - frequency responses etc.
She says that they much more user friendly than "real" hearing aids.
Hmm, maybe a generation thing? Will be interesting to see what happens.
I would suspect it is the technology moving faster than the bureaucracy.
Even a few years ago, a hyper responsive miniaturised microphone/earpiece setup, with customisable frequency response and battery life of days, was advanced tech.
Now you can buy that stuff on Amazon.
I'll bet money, that if I dig around, there is a whole sub-culture of hearing impaired people (probably on Reddit) modding headphones, writing code, swapping ideas on the best ones etc.
"The street finds its own uses for things" was a brilliant line from Gibson. So true.
Oh, sure. One worry is that (as with eyesight) increasing deafness can be not so much an illness but a symptom of something deeper. The other is that so much tech isn't really designed for older and fumblier fingers (ask me why I can't use tiny mobiles and generally hate them, but then I have massive digits).
I wonder what the now departed Foxy would have made of these stickers today. The sort of thing I would have expected at a soccer game in the seventies or early eighties not today.
Conversations are said to have taken place in No 10 about whether to call an early election in 2027
A source close: "The feeling is Keir [who is 62] doesn’t necessarily want ten years, but he does want two terms. I think 2027 is underpriced."
And the next part of that article.
In this scenario a strong Reform showing in May, and again at the May 2026 Welsh elections, which Welsh Tories expect Farage to win, could lead to Badenoch’s removal and give Labour a window in which to exploit Conservative chaos.
Some, perhaps most, in Starmer’s inner circle regard this talk as bananas, but the fact it has begun highlights just how significant the next 12 months could be for the future of all three parties.
Comments
I've acknowledged that she's damaged goods, so I'm not sure how this is an interesting avenue of discussion?
He had to built newt fences to keep them to the other end of the plot.
Being a moron, the person in question dumped some newts from a pet place. An exotic non-native breed.
Being an double moron, she did this on a planned building site protected by CCTV, rolling up in her car, unmasked.
According to the chap I know in the area, who told the story, and her Farcebook page, they are looking at charging her with introducing a non-native species.
1) Lab: 30, Con: 30, LD: 14, Ref: 30
2) Lab: 20, Con: 20, LD: 7, Ref: 25
3) 5
4) 0
5) 3
6) 3
7) 200
8) 3.6%
9) £150bn
10) 0.5%
11) 3%
12) 0.2%
13) 800 RUB = $1
14) 2-2
It would be anti-democratic if it was directly after the election (red Ken / GLA for example) but Starmer has had long enough for labour MPs to legitimately change their mind if they wanted
SPOILER ALERT
They won’t
Reminds me (in unnecessary risk terms at least) of when Sunak brought back Braverman as Home Secretary mere days after she resigned from the position - she needed to be rewarded for backing him, and he wanted to signal toughness in that role, but there must have been someone else who could do that and she could have had another very senior post as a reward.
The leader of Oldham Council's Conservative group has resigned after police were called following a heated council meeting.
The meeting on 18 December had to be adjourned after members of the public and councillors hurled abuse at each other following a debate about housing and planning.
Councillor Graham Sheldon, who has stepped down both as leader and as a member of the Conservative group, said he believed "the actions of two members of my group caused the mayhem and deterioration of the meeting".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ewj7d285no
As in:
The Oldham Council meeting was adjourned after a heated debate centred around the "controversial" Places for Everyone * housing scheme.
Tensions rose to the point that members of the public and councillors were hurling abuse at each other and the acting borough solicitor, including references to "dictators" and "Nazi sympathisers".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1eldn0j7qgo
* This is the joint development plan across 9 out of 10 boroughs in Manchester.
It's the insincerity that infuriates me with a lot of NIMBYs. You can see it very easily with the 'throw everything at the wall' approach to raising objections, any objections to see what sticks, usually with histrionic exaggerations, and jumping from reason A to reason B as each one is addressed in turn, and in particular the refusal to change their minds if the evidence does not support a particular objection strand.
That is the fundamental difference between someone raising legitimate concerns and NIMBYs, even as both will start out using the same arguments - the latter will never be mollified no matter what is done. As such, the system should not give them further ammunition by making it so easy.
What an idiot.
I do hope they charge her as actions like that can have dire consequences for native species and to send a message to others thinking of it.
It would be very very hard to get past the clear damage she did to our economy. And harder still to get past the lettuce. Even with Muskybaby doing her PR
The NHS regulation barring the use of Apple AirPods, capable of conducting hearing tests and functioning as hearing aids, will be scrapped
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1875650574835970082
Struggling to understand how this will do anything but AirPods are very capable hearing aids.
I wonder what the now departed Foxy would have made of these stickers today. The sort of thing I would have expected at a soccer game in the seventies or early eighties not today.
But we now know what you think.
Tensions rose to the point that members of the public and councillors were hurling abuse at each other and the acting borough solicitor, including references to "dictators" and "Nazi sympathisers"
It's not twitter lads (It's usually men with this type of thing), calm it down.
I am pretty sure that 'pro-business' in the context of Government reforms used to be shorthand for 'pro-British-business'. Good of Rachel to offer Apple a helping hand though, I'm sure they really need it.
The other issue is the need for reliability and a reasonable life 16 hours a day.
Maybe they are OK for certain forms of mild deafness?
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/120992
Here you are. I looked into it for my Dad but you couldn’t get them subsidised.
Thats why this meglomaniac nutter is best ignored like any bully.
If I was Starmer I'd be saying I have absolutely no interest in what Musk says as I want to get on with serious politics
No independent health check, either, to see just what the problem is (in case it is something worse).
And no loop system either.
And not approved in the UK yet. No sign of any report on RNID yet but those things take time.
But I suspect you are right.
Have a look at the RNID website.
It was quite nasty here last night.
They're fucking rivetingly interesting
But I really hope @Foxy will return. One of the best posters here and always polite and good to talk to about a variety of things. We are poorer without him.
1 Lab 35, Con 32, LD 15, Ref 26,
2 Lab 22, Con 22, LD 11, Ref 17
3 Reform MPs = 15
4 Tory to Reform = 10
5 By Elections = 5
6 Cabinet outs = 4
7 AFD = 123
8 CPI = 2%
9 UK Borrowing = £86.3bn
10 UK Growth = 2.1%
11 US Growth = 2.4%
12 EU Growth = 1.2%
13 = 147
14 = 3 - 1 to Australia
Question to the forum? Am I alone? Do I have freak ears? Is there a solution?
Nor a Labour Party Member
When interest rate falls reduce Mortgage Fixed Rates to below 4%
When Reform blow apart with interference from Musk and Robinson
When Kemi is shown to be totally our if her depth.
Electoral Calculus analysis shows Nigel Farage’s party could leapfrog both Conservatives and Labour if it continues to pick up support"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/reform-six-points-off-biggest-party-election-prediction/
Seriously, that's another possible reason not to use then as hearing aids if the bloody things don't stay in. Anotdher is that they can't amplify sound very much if their fit is loose/crap because of the feedback you get if there is the merest gap.
Is that 40,000 in total? Doesn’t seem like very many?
It was the rounded perfection of her self-love that struck me. Not the slightest scratch.
The King will not save us, just like the Queen did not save us during the prorogation crisis.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/24/prince-charless-letter-to-john-kerr-reportedly-endorsing-sacking-of-whitlam-condemned
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/26/prince-charles-knew-of-idea-to-dismiss-whitlam-before-1975-crisis-book-claims
I used solely Gmail and never received verification notifications
That now seems to be fixed
She says that they much more user friendly than "real" hearing aids.
I expect 40000 in 2025
I anticipate fewer arriving.
Now we know that the figures are just statistics but if Labour can say for the first time since 2019 we've repatriated more out than on 2 fold it a very powerful nessage
1 Lab 29%/Con 36%/LD 15%/Reform 23%
2 Lab 21%/Con 26%/LD 8%/Reform 13%
3 3 Reform MPs
4 0 Tory defector to Reform
5 3 by-elections
6 3 ministers to leave Cabinet
7 132 AfD seats
8 UK CPI 2.2%
9 UK borrowing £141 BN
10 UK GDP growth 0.3%
11 US growth 2.5%
12 EU growth 0.2%
13 USD/Ruble 152
14 Ashes 3-0 Aus
So we'd best talk about less controversial things.
Pause. Thinks for a minute.
I know, what about that Elo[That's enough - Ed]
Even a few years ago, a hyper responsive miniaturised microphone/earpiece setup, with customisable frequency response and battery life of days, was advanced tech.
Now you can buy that stuff on Amazon.
I'll bet money, that if I dig around, there is a whole sub-culture of hearing impaired people (probably on Reddit) modding headphones, writing code, swapping ideas on the best ones etc.
"The street finds its own uses for things" was a brilliant line from Gibson. So true.
Conversations are said to have taken place in No 10 about whether to call an early election in 2027
A source close: "The feeling is Keir [who is 62] doesn’t necessarily want ten years, but he does want two terms. I think 2027 is underpriced."
In this scenario a strong Reform showing in May, and again at the May 2026 Welsh elections, which Welsh Tories expect Farage to win, could lead to Badenoch’s removal and give Labour a window in which to exploit Conservative chaos.
Some, perhaps most, in Starmer’s inner circle regard this talk as bananas, but the fact it has begun highlights just how significant the next 12 months could be for the future of all three parties.