Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
My memory of that is a school trip to see the Queen.... It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
To me if he has done that he Kevin is being a very silly boy, playing straight into the straw men that are created by Ref UK to avoid taking responsibility for their extremists and extremist links. It's not as if there is any shortage of material.
The people who in my experience most often compare Farage & RefUK to Nazis are presenters on GB News as in "They are calling us Nazis. Are we Nazis?" (90% of the time "they" are not calling the Nazis", but it is a possibly effective deflection), and certain left wing activists of the SWP and similar variety.
Has this generation of Conservatives forgotten that rhetoric needs to be based on a smidgeon of reality, otherwise there is no anchor point?
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Indeed, I was born in 1975. The irony of the UK IMF pogramme is that the UK didn't actually need it. It was based on economic data that were subsequently revised higher. The utility of the IMF of course is that it allows the government to do stuff that it knows to be necessary but doesn't want to take the blame for - those meanies from Washington made me do it! It provides market participants with some guarantee that things won't blow up and so allows the government to borrow more cheaply. There is too much stigma attached to IMF programmes IMHO.
I've often wondered why the Unions went so completely over the top, in the Winter of 1978/9. Things were gradually improving, in the economy and Northern Ireland, from the start of 1976. 1975 was world communism's high water mark, and it was downhill from there. Labour might well have achieved re-election, without the self-defeating behaviour of trade union leaders.
Perhaps Sean, they self-defeated on purpose. I've often suspected as much, although I have no direct evidence or even a particularly strong grasp of the history of the period.
The past is different country.
The most toxic legacy of the Industrial Revolution may have been the warfare between the Bosses and the Workers.
A key point in this was an absolute lack of interest in the point of view of the other side. Or, indeed, of much outside a very narrow viewpoint. Complete Reichenbach Falls - two sides so intent on the other that they barely notice falling together to their deaths.
The management had largely given up on modernisation - fighting strikes and trying to hold wages down was the game. That, and begging for subsidy from Government.
The unions, in that time, were preoccupied with wages, conditions *and* demarcation and preventing productivity improvement
WUT!! I hear? Productivity Bad?
Well, they believed that productivity meant people losing their jobs. The competitiveness of the firm was irrelevant - The Bosses could afford it. And British goods would always sell, at any price.
The realisation that productivity creates more jobs in the wider economy hadn’t sunk in.
In addition, in the nationalised industries, the government had long got into the habit of binging some subsidy at them. To get to the next election. An attempt at modernisation would just provoke rounds of strikes - politically expensive.
When the Japanese car makers started in the U.K., they managed to build cars well and to a good *cost*. The workforce was often the same (and managers) - lots of ex-British Leyland. But the culture was completely different.
I recall the old style union barons declaring that arbitrated no-strike deals were a betrayal of the workers. There was even a proposal on the ultra-left that they should be banned.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend...
On that score, he's had a fairly free ride for his decade long public dabbling in far right conspiracy theory.
Farage urged to explain conspiracy theories linked to antisemitism he voiced in US media
In appearances on US TV shows and podcasts earlier in his political career, Farage discussed supposed plots by bankers to create a global government, citing Goldman Sachs, the Bilderberg group and the financier George Soros as threats to democracy.
These included six guest slots on the web TV show of the disgraced far-right US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Jones was successfully sued by bereaved parents after claiming the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre was faked.
During one interview with Jones in 2018, Farage argued that “globalists” were trying to engineer a war with Russia “as an argument for us all to surrender our national sovereignty and give it up to a higher global level”.
Farage also appeared six times on the web radio show of Rick Wiles, a far-right, antisemitic American pastor. Here, topics included whether central bankers would soon start to appoint leaders of the UK and US – an idea Farage did not challenge...
As with the schoolboy stuff, who cares? Specifically, which Reform supporters will know who the flip Rick Wiles is and will also object to Farage having appeared on his show? Wait till the Guardian finds out Nige supported President Trump!
Not so sure about the other conspiracy stuff but George Soros and the foundations he funds have fingers in many organisations who aim to influence many areas of American society and the wider world in what would be described as a 'Progressive' way. Globalist etc is never a word I would use because it is the language of the loon. But because a well known figure who uses his enormous wealth to influence the world around him is jewish (I assume) should not make him immune from criticism.
The whole US political system goes out of its way to make it easy for rich people to influence many areas of US policy and society: see Charles Koch, Sheldon Adelson, Elon Musk, Harlan Crow etc. on the right. And yet the one guy on the left, who is also Jewish, attracts outsized opprobrium.
What's notable is that it is the US right, which for decades has been advocated for unrestricted political funding (culminating in the notorious Citizens United decision), and while spending billions themselves, that creates conspiracy nonsense regarding the entirely open political funding from a liberal billionaire.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Indeed, I was born in 1975. The irony of the UK IMF pogramme is that the UK didn't actually need it. It was based on economic data that were subsequently revised higher. The utility of the IMF of course is that it allows the government to do stuff that it knows to be necessary but doesn't want to take the blame for - those meanies from Washington made me do it! It provides market participants with some guarantee that things won't blow up and so allows the government to borrow more cheaply. There is too much stigma attached to IMF programmes IMHO.
Tories haven't needed to tcall in the IMF because they were prepared to do austerity - and take the hit. They needed to do austerity because Labour should have done stuff it knew to be necessary but didn't want to incur the blame for.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
A friend is something of a polyglot. She gets annoyed with people online who are always looking for One Simple Trick to learn a language quickly. There's no such thing, she says. You just have to put the work in.
I feel the same about healthcare policy. People want One Simple Trick to deliver better healthcare at less cost. It doesn't exist. Yes, there are plenty of small things you can do. The healthcare policy research literature is full of international comparisons and proposals, and the NHS is constantly looking at these, piloting schemes and making changes. But switching to, say, the German healthcare system isn't going to spectacularly change the underlying challenges: healthcare costs money and the population is ageing. The research suggests that, more or less, the different delivery systems across Europe don't make that much difference, but the amount you spend does.
That's part of it. But cast an eye over Taiwan; they seem to be significantly more effective in delivering healthcare.
Define "significantly".
There is no One Simple Trick.
Like everyone else, they have a healthcare system, rather than "one simple trick". They just seem to run it rather well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Taiwan According to the Numbeo Health Care Index in 2025, Taiwan has the best healthcare system in the world, scoring 86.5 out of 100, a slight increase from 86 the previous year. This marked the seventh consecutive year that Taiwan has ranked first in the Numbeo Health Care Index.. The 2024 edition of the CEOWORLD Magazine Health Care Index also ranked Taiwan first among 110 countries surveyed, with a score of 78.72 out of 100.
Their system isn't without its own problems, of course, but it's well worth looking at for how they brought in healthcare reform, and why it worked.
I’m all for looking at other countries’ healthcare systems, which is what academics, think tanks and government employees do all the time.
Taiwan has a good healthcare system, but one that faces similar problems to our. Here’s Hsu & Lin (2024) in The Lancet:
“However, this remarkable example of universal health care is plagued by several issues that are worsening daily, including budgetary issues, a hostile work environment, and a low retention rate of doctors and nurses. Multiple reasons have resulted in the Taiwanese health-care system being on the brink of a crisis.”
Anyway on topic: SKS. Keir Starmer. Our PM. At current prices I’m more a layer than a backer of a 2026 exit, however I do think somebody else will likely be leading Labour into the next election. The root of the problem isn’t policy it’s personality. He is unable (apart from that appearance on Desert Island Discs which was perhaps a fluke) to forge an emotional connection with the public. That’s why his personal ratings are rock bottom. It’s hellish hard to fix this. He’d need to reinvent himself, create a new and vibrant public persona, but the catch 22 is if he were the sort of person who could create vibrant public personas there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. It’s a bummer but there we are. Faking authenticity is a key part of the toolset for the modern politician and he’s missing it.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Indeed, I was born in 1975. The irony of the UK IMF pogramme is that the UK didn't actually need it. It was based on economic data that were subsequently revised higher. The utility of the IMF of course is that it allows the government to do stuff that it knows to be necessary but doesn't want to take the blame for - those meanies from Washington made me do it! It provides market participants with some guarantee that things won't blow up and so allows the government to borrow more cheaply. There is too much stigma attached to IMF programmes IMHO.
Tories haven't needed to tcall in the IMF because they were prepared to do austerity - and take the hit. They needed to do austerity because Labour should have done stuff it knew to be necessary but didn't want to incur the blame for.
Lol. Fine as partisan banter but otherwise the most utter tosh.
Anyway on topic: SKS. Keir Starmer. Our PM. At current prices I’m more a layer than a backer of a 2026 exit, however I do think somebody else will likely be leading Labour into the next election. The root of the problem isn’t policy it’s personality. He is unable (apart from that appearance on Desert Island Discs which was perhaps a fluke) to forge an emotional connection with the public. That’s why his personal ratings are rock bottom. It’s hellish hard to fix this. He’d need to reinvent himself, create a new and vibrant public persona, but the catch 22 is if he were the sort of person who could create vibrant public personas there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. It’s a bummer but there we are. Faking authenticity is a key part of the toolset for the modern politician and he’s missing it.
Might be helpful if we could see him with his family sometimes. Not often, just sometimes.
Some interesting cross-overs happening or about to happen.
Greens have overtaken LDs Conservatives about to overtake Labour? Before next General, Greens to overtake Tories, Labour and Reform, as Reform are found out and Greens are not?? Greens are 16/1 for most seats on Betfair.
Anyway on topic: SKS. Keir Starmer. Our PM. At current prices I’m more a layer than a backer of a 2026 exit, however I do think somebody else will likely be leading Labour into the next election. The root of the problem isn’t policy it’s personality. He is unable (apart from that appearance on Desert Island Discs which was perhaps a fluke) to forge an emotional connection with the public. That’s why his personal ratings are rock bottom. It’s hellish hard to fix this. He’d need to reinvent himself, create a new and vibrant public persona, but the catch 22 is if he were the sort of person who could create vibrant public personas there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. It’s a bummer but there we are. Faking authenticity is a key part of the toolset for the modern politician and he’s missing it.
Might be helpful if we could see him with his family sometimes. Not often, just sometimes.
Anyway on topic: SKS. Keir Starmer. Our PM. At current prices I’m more a layer than a backer of a 2026 exit, however I do think somebody else will likely be leading Labour into the next election. The root of the problem isn’t policy it’s personality. He is unable (apart from that appearance on Desert Island Discs which was perhaps a fluke) to forge an emotional connection with the public. That’s why his personal ratings are rock bottom. It’s hellish hard to fix this. He’d need to reinvent himself, create a new and vibrant public persona, but the catch 22 is if he were the sort of person who could create vibrant public personas there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. It’s a bummer but there we are. Faking authenticity is a key part of the toolset for the modern politician and he’s missing it.
It is both policy and personality although they are related. Too timid, too cautious and says things which aren't backed strongly enough by actions applies to both policy and personality.
Anyway on topic: SKS. Keir Starmer. Our PM. At current prices I’m more a layer than a backer of a 2026 exit, however I do think somebody else will likely be leading Labour into the next election. The root of the problem isn’t policy it’s personality. He is unable (apart from that appearance on Desert Island Discs which was perhaps a fluke) to forge an emotional connection with the public. That’s why his personal ratings are rock bottom. It’s hellish hard to fix this. He’d need to reinvent himself, create a new and vibrant public persona, but the catch 22 is if he were the sort of person who could create vibrant public personas there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. It’s a bummer but there we are. Faking authenticity is a key part of the toolset for the modern politician and he’s missing it.
Might be helpful if we could see him with his family sometimes. Not often, just sometimes.
Good article on illegal military orders, and the US armed services, which sets out something that is not widely understood (least of all by the man child in the White House):
...The Constitution and Congress deliberately created two different oaths—one for enlisted personnel, and one for officers. That structure is not bureaucratic trivia; it is grounded on the bedrock American civil–military relations. Ignoring it leads to the misleading assumption that everyone in uniform bears equal responsibility when confronted with an unlawful command.
They don’t. And that distinction matters.
Enlisted members swear to support and defend the Constitution, and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” And the UCMJ makes crystal clear that the service member’s obligation is to obey “lawful” orders, and that no enlisted member is permitted to carry out an unlawful order. But the enlisted oath is also intentionally anchored in obedience of the chain of command. The accountability lies one level up.
Which brings us to the officer oath—shorter in words, heavier in weight. Officers swear to “support and defend” the Constitution; to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it; and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of their office. They also affirm that they “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” What they do not swear to do is equally important: Officers make no promise to obey the president and the officers above them.
That omission is not an oversight. Officers give orders, evaluate legality, and act as the constitutional circuit breakers the Founders intended. They are expected—by law, by professional ethic, and by centuries of tradition—to exercise independent judgment when presented with a questionable directive. Officers are duty-bound to refuse an unlawful order. It is not optional. It is not situational. It is their job.
When the members of Congress in their video urge what seems to be the entire military not to follow illegal orders, they may unintentionally blur the very lines that keep the system functioning. Enlisted personnel obey lawful orders; officers ensure the orders that reach them are lawful. The real constitutional failsafe is not a general broadcast to every rank. It is the officer corps, obligated by oath to the Constitution alone...
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
My memory of that is a school trip to see the Queen.... It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
My memories of the seventies..... Hmmmm. My children were doing reasonably well at school; eldest son got the apprenticeship he wanted at the end of the decade, daughter met the man..... well, a youth then ...... she went on to marry and younger son failed the 11+...... only two boys per primary school 'allowed' to pass to the neighbouring authority's two Grammar Schools, and on the day of the exam he had a cold! I didn't mind too much but it rankled with him for years! Early in the decade the firm I was with was doing quite well, but later I managed to make a few bad decisions which cost us dear.
I think I have three memories from the 1970s! I remember a beautiful light blue scales on the counter of a shop. I remember having mumps one Christmas. And I remember the day we moved house in 1979, the removal men needed to pack the tricycle I was sitting on, and then our new house had bright red carpets.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
Not that much, compare the average Poles work ethic to the average French employees work ethic
I’ve worked in French offices. It’s a very different experience to the UK.
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
I thought productivity was more to do with the quality of infrastructure and job training, areas where the UK scores low,
If it were all about working heads down for long hours many poor countries would very much richer.
But it's also about Britain's tendency to value presenteeism.
Being in the office, even if you aren't achieving much, is seen as better the getting stuff done and then going- either to an agreeable bistro or home.
(See the 4 day week hooh hah. The idea that there's a limit to how much quality thinking we can do in a week, and it's closer to four office days than five, just doesn't compute as well in the UK. Probably that protestant work ethic.)
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
A friend is something of a polyglot. She gets annoyed with people online who are always looking for One Simple Trick to learn a language quickly. There's no such thing, she says. You just have to put the work in.
I feel the same about healthcare policy. People want One Simple Trick to deliver better healthcare at less cost. It doesn't exist. Yes, there are plenty of small things you can do. The healthcare policy research literature is full of international comparisons and proposals, and the NHS is constantly looking at these, piloting schemes and making changes. But switching to, say, the German healthcare system isn't going to spectacularly change the underlying challenges: healthcare costs money and the population is ageing. The research suggests that, more or less, the different delivery systems across Europe don't make that much difference, but the amount you spend does.
That's part of it. But cast an eye over Taiwan; they seem to be significantly more effective in delivering healthcare.
Define "significantly".
There is no One Simple Trick.
Like everyone else, they have a healthcare system, rather than "one simple trick". They just seem to run it rather well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Taiwan According to the Numbeo Health Care Index in 2025, Taiwan has the best healthcare system in the world, scoring 86.5 out of 100, a slight increase from 86 the previous year. This marked the seventh consecutive year that Taiwan has ranked first in the Numbeo Health Care Index.. The 2024 edition of the CEOWORLD Magazine Health Care Index also ranked Taiwan first among 110 countries surveyed, with a score of 78.72 out of 100.
Their system isn't without its own problems, of course, but it's well worth looking at for how they brought in healthcare reform, and why it worked.
I lived there when it was brought in in 1995. Cost buttons. Got an emergency root canal on Christmas Day 1997 for £1.50.
Any “clampdown on benefit fraud” will last about as long as the first handful of out-of-context Guardian sob-stories of people “kicked out of their homes” or “denied their benefits”.
Must be time for a rehash of the army of loft laggers and of course the annual new year resolution that the civil service will go on a diet with government efficiency savings, finished off with the all time time #1, better tax enforcement. Will mean 100 million new jobs, £100bn saved, £100bn raised....
In all seriousness, a proper push on insulation rather than with the current restrictions on it would make a big difference, particularly with the aim of having heat pumps everywhere if possible.
I wouldn’t trust the people the Government would involve to do it, to correctly do it. As Taz says spray loft insulation has become a grade A disaster because the Government allowed cowboys to do it on the cheap
The Government could subsidise British sheepswool insulation - thus helping beleagured British farmers.
The only reason that British upland sheep farmers can survive is the massive subsidies that already exist. I'm not sure how you could justify even more cash for a sector that doesn't have national security considerations.
I see sheep are obviously public enemy number one with the ecoloon brigade.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Indeed, I was born in 1975. The irony of the UK IMF pogramme is that the UK didn't actually need it. It was based on economic data that were subsequently revised higher. The utility of the IMF of course is that it allows the government to do stuff that it knows to be necessary but doesn't want to take the blame for - those meanies from Washington made me do it! It provides market participants with some guarantee that things won't blow up and so allows the government to borrow more cheaply. There is too much stigma attached to IMF programmes IMHO.
Tories haven't needed to tcall in the IMF because they were prepared to do austerity - and take the hit. They needed to do austerity because Labour should have done stuff it knew to be necessary but didn't want to incur the blame for.
Another way of describing being prepared to do austerity would be to enact the biggest wealth transfer from workers to asset owners the country has ever seen through the mix of higher taxes, lower spending and QE. Which at the time worked out smashingly for their elderly client vote, but has lost them future credibility with voters under 55.
Britain needs nuclear power. Our nuclear projects are the most expensive in the world and among the slowest. Regulators and industry are paralysed by risk aversion. This can change. For Britain to prosper, it must.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister appointed me to lead a Taskforce to set out a path to getting affordable, fast nuclear power Britain.
Our final report today sets out 47 recommendations, among them:
- Creating a one-stop shop for nuclear approvals, to end the regulatory merry-go-round that delays projects at the moment. - Simplifying environmental rules to avoid extreme outcomes like Hinkley Point C spending £700m on systems to protect one salmon every ten years, while enhancing nuclear's impact on nature. - Limiting the ability of spurious legal challenges to delay nuclear projects, which adds huge cost and delay throughout the supply chain. - Approving fleets of reactors, so that Britain’s nuclear industry can benefit from certainty and economies of scale. - Directing regulators to factor in cost to their behaviour, and changing their culture to allow building cheaply, quickly and safely. - Changing the culture of the nuclear industry to end gold-plating and focus on efficient, safe delivery.
If the government adopts our report in full, it will send a signal to investors that it is serious about pro-growth reform and taking on vested interests for the public good.
A thriving British nuclear industry producing abundant, affordable energy would be good for jobs, good for manufacturing, good for the climate, and good for the cost of living. And it could enable Britain to become an AI and technology superpower.
Britain can be a world leader in this new Industrial Revolution, but only if it has the energy to power it.
Our report is bold, but balanced. Our recommendations, taken together and properly implemented, will forge a clear path for stronger economic growth through improved productivity and innovation. This is a prize worth fighting for.
A shame they didn't do this a year ago, but it should indeed be adopted in full.
SpaceX’s founding story is 2002 Elon calculating all the commodity prices of the steel, carbon fibre, propellant, etc for building a rocket and realising they only made up 2% of the price. He noticed the capacity for 50x cost savings and went on to realise them.
I’ve ran similar numbers for British nuclear and found something similar: the concrete, copper cable, steel, and so on add up to ~£100m per GW of capacity, while Hinckley point C is costing ~£10B/GW.
Transformative regulatory and industry changes that can make nuclear the cheapest and most reliable energy source in history are possible, and this is the first report I’ve read that understands this potential while also offering good first step recommendations for the industry at large. https://x.com/BernoulliDefect/status/1992910271715643449
Some interesting cross-overs happening or about to happen.
Greens have overtaken LDs Conservatives about to overtake Labour? Before next General, Greens to overtake Tories, Labour and Reform, as Reform are found out and Greens are not?? Greens are 16/1 for most seats on Betfair.
Over the years many people have decried party loyalty and the system of Safe Seats.
Including myself.
We have definitely arrived in an age where party loyalty is fickle, at best.
Anyway on topic: SKS. Keir Starmer. Our PM. At current prices I’m more a layer than a backer of a 2026 exit, however I do think somebody else will likely be leading Labour into the next election. The root of the problem isn’t policy it’s personality. He is unable (apart from that appearance on Desert Island Discs which was perhaps a fluke) to forge an emotional connection with the public. That’s why his personal ratings are rock bottom. It’s hellish hard to fix this. He’d need to reinvent himself, create a new and vibrant public persona, but the catch 22 is if he were the sort of person who could create vibrant public personas there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. It’s a bummer but there we are. Faking authenticity is a key part of the toolset for the modern politician and he’s missing it.
Might be helpful if we could see him with his family sometimes. Not often, just sometimes.
Others will disagree but with 'Call me' Dave you knew who he was. He was slightly posh and obviously fairly well off, but seemed a bit more grounded than some. His disabled son meant he had a lot of contact with the NHS. He was... normal. People would know people like him. They would paly sports with people like him. They might have relatives like him.
Starmer just doesn't have that about him. He should have - he's pretty much a self made man - rose to the top of the CPS, then made it to PM. He loves football and no-one would I think imagine thats an act. He has a wife and kids, but he has kept that side of life very far away from the public (which is a fair choice, but may not help his image). And he has tough times. Blair had it easy. Come into office after 18 years of the Tories with a booming economy, so room to increase spending. And Blair was relatable too.
I fear for Starmer's longevity. I suspect he's in big trouble in May.
Britain needs nuclear power. Our nuclear projects are the most expensive in the world and among the slowest. Regulators and industry are paralysed by risk aversion. This can change. For Britain to prosper, it must.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister appointed me to lead a Taskforce to set out a path to getting affordable, fast nuclear power Britain.
Our final report today sets out 47 recommendations, among them:
- Creating a one-stop shop for nuclear approvals, to end the regulatory merry-go-round that delays projects at the moment. - Simplifying environmental rules to avoid extreme outcomes like Hinkley Point C spending £700m on systems to protect one salmon every ten years, while enhancing nuclear's impact on nature. - Limiting the ability of spurious legal challenges to delay nuclear projects, which adds huge cost and delay throughout the supply chain. - Approving fleets of reactors, so that Britain’s nuclear industry can benefit from certainty and economies of scale. - Directing regulators to factor in cost to their behaviour, and changing their culture to allow building cheaply, quickly and safely. - Changing the culture of the nuclear industry to end gold-plating and focus on efficient, safe delivery.
If the government adopts our report in full, it will send a signal to investors that it is serious about pro-growth reform and taking on vested interests for the public good.
A thriving British nuclear industry producing abundant, affordable energy would be good for jobs, good for manufacturing, good for the climate, and good for the cost of living. And it could enable Britain to become an AI and technology superpower.
Britain can be a world leader in this new Industrial Revolution, but only if it has the energy to power it.
Our report is bold, but balanced. Our recommendations, taken together and properly implemented, will forge a clear path for stronger economic growth through improved productivity and innovation. This is a prize worth fighting for.
A shame they didn't do this a year ago, but it should indeed be adopted in full.
SpaceX’s founding story is 2002 Elon calculating all the commodity prices of the steel, carbon fibre, propellant, etc for building a rocket and realising they only made up 2% of the price. He noticed the capacity for 50x cost savings and went on to realise them.
I’ve ran similar numbers for British nuclear and found something similar: the concrete, copper cable, steel, and so on add up to ~£100m per GW of capacity, while Hinckley point C is costing ~£10B/GW.
Transformative regulatory and industry changes that can make nuclear the cheapest and most reliable energy source in history are possible, and this is the first report I’ve read that understands this potential while also offering good first step recommendations for the industry at large. https://x.com/BernoulliDefect/status/1992910271715643449
The other thing to note is that people trained under the US Navy nuclear power program - where safety rules as a king, and there are huge margins built into the reactor system etc - decry the US civilian program.
They are in a position to say, since people who retire from the US Navy often go to work in the civilian nuclear industry - good pay and there is high demand for their skills.
Civilian nuclear regulation is both useless for safety (even detrimental) and insanely expensive, is their typical comment.
This is because a regulation doesn’t necessarily make things better. It can actually make things worse.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h The point of the "Triple Lock" was that it was supposed to facilitate a period of catch-up in the state pension. When did it switch from that concept - a temporary catch-up phase - to becoming some kind of sacred commitment for all eternity?
The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.
In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.
The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.
Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
There are several licensed professions- law, finance etc- where a criminal conviction bars people from entering them at all, so even if we allow that a conviction should not bar an individual from public office, it is outrageous that the voters are not allowed to know that one individual or another has such a conviction. How can convicted criminals be allowed to make the law, either as a member of the legislature or as a minister if the people they supposedly serve are totally unaware of such a conflict of interest.
It may well be a regulatory issue to do with GDPR, which is another matter altogether from the point you raise (which has led do some interesting discussion).
We do have confidential searches for DBS for employers considering potential or actual employees, ditto organizations considering volunteers (for instance art galleries should check that no kiddy-fiddlers are applying to help with childrens' activities.
The obvious thought is that as employers we would like to know our MPs' crim records or at least what a DBS shows.
The equally obvious rejoinder from our MPs is that how dare we? They don't see themselves as our employees that have to follow normal workplace standards, legislation (see scandals passim). The standard for sacking MPs tout court is a much higher (or one should say lower) one than in your average office or workshop.
Which leaves the final thought - they aren't MPs after Parliament is dissolved, and until they are elected ... so why not DBS?
Anyway on topic: SKS. Keir Starmer. Our PM. At current prices I’m more a layer than a backer of a 2026 exit, however I do think somebody else will likely be leading Labour into the next election. The root of the problem isn’t policy it’s personality. He is unable (apart from that appearance on Desert Island Discs which was perhaps a fluke) to forge an emotional connection with the public. That’s why his personal ratings are rock bottom. It’s hellish hard to fix this. He’d need to reinvent himself, create a new and vibrant public persona, but the catch 22 is if he were the sort of person who could create vibrant public personas there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. It’s a bummer but there we are. Faking authenticity is a key part of the toolset for the modern politician and he’s missing it.
Might be helpful if we could see him with his family sometimes. Not often, just sometimes.
Others will disagree but with 'Call me' Dave you knew who he was. He was slightly posh and obviously fairly well off, but seemed a bit more grounded than some. His disabled son meant he had a lot of contact with the NHS. He was... normal. People would know people like him. They would paly sports with people like him. They might have relatives like him.
Starmer just doesn't have that about him. He should have - he's pretty much a self made man - rose to the top of the CPS, then made it to PM. He loves football and no-one would I think imagine thats an act. He has a wife and kids, but he has kept that side of life very far away from the public (which is a fair choice, but may not help his image). And he has tough times. Blair had it easy. Come into office after 18 years of the Tories with a booming economy, so room to increase spending. And Blair was relatable too.
I fear for Starmer's longevity. I suspect he's in big trouble in May.
A persistent comment from Labour MPs is the lack of engagement from Starmer.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Indeed, I was born in 1975. The irony of the UK IMF pogramme is that the UK didn't actually need it. It was based on economic data that were subsequently revised higher. The utility of the IMF of course is that it allows the government to do stuff that it knows to be necessary but doesn't want to take the blame for - those meanies from Washington made me do it! It provides market participants with some guarantee that things won't blow up and so allows the government to borrow more cheaply. There is too much stigma attached to IMF programmes IMHO.
Tories haven't needed to tcall in the IMF because they were prepared to do austerity - and take the hit. They needed to do austerity because Labour should have done stuff it knew to be necessary but didn't want to incur the blame for.
It turned out Labour didn't need to either. Just an accounting error and they reached for the Bat-phone.
Anyway we have Reform on the horizon. If they need a bail out they can simply apply to the Kremlin.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h The point of the "Triple Lock" was that it was supposed to facilitate a period of catch-up in the state pension. When did it switch from that concept - a temporary catch-up phase - to becoming some kind of sacred commitment for all eternity?
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
My memory of that is a school trip to see the Queen.... It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
School trips, or packed lunches ?
Mystery paste surely. Memories of Shippams bloater paste in little jars with medical-appliance-shop pink rubber rims.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
My memory of that is a school trip to see the Queen.... It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
My memories of the seventies..... Hmmmm. My children were doing reasonably well at school; eldest son got the apprenticeship he wanted at the end of the decade, daughter met the man..... well, a youth then ...... she went on to marry and younger son failed the 11+...... only two boys per primary school 'allowed' to pass to the neighbouring authority's two Grammar Schools, and on the day of the exam he had a cold! I didn't mind too much but it rankled with him for years! Early in the decade the firm I was with was doing quite well, but later I managed to make a few bad decisions which cost us dear.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
My memory of that is a school trip to see the Queen.... It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
My memories of the seventies..... Hmmmm. My children were doing reasonably well at school; eldest son got the apprenticeship he wanted at the end of the decade, daughter met the man..... well, a youth then ...... she went on to marry and younger son failed the 11+...... only two boys per primary school 'allowed' to pass to the neighbouring authority's two Grammar Schools, and on the day of the exam he had a cold! I didn't mind too much but it rankled with him for years! Early in the decade the firm I was with was doing quite well, but later I managed to make a few bad decisions which cost us dear.
I think I have three memories from the 1970s! I remember a beautiful light blue scales on the counter of a shop. I remember having mumps one Christmas. And I remember the day we moved house in 1979, the removal men needed to pack the tricycle I was sitting on, and then our new house had bright red carpets.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
My memory of that is a school trip to see the Queen.... It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
My memories of the seventies..... Hmmmm. My children were doing reasonably well at school; eldest son got the apprenticeship he wanted at the end of the decade, daughter met the man..... well, a youth then ...... she went on to marry and younger son failed the 11+...... only two boys per primary school 'allowed' to pass to the neighbouring authority's two Grammar Schools, and on the day of the exam he had a cold! I didn't mind too much but it rankled with him for years! Early in the decade the firm I was with was doing quite well, but later I managed to make a few bad decisions which cost us dear.
I think I have three memories from the 1970s! I remember a beautiful light blue scales on the counter of a shop. I remember having mumps one Christmas. And I remember the day we moved house in 1979, the removal men needed to pack the tricycle I was sitting on, and then our new house had bright red carpets.
Fitted carpets? Luxury.
My memories of the 70s are of similar ilk. Being told not to walk into a sea cave on a beach in Pembrokeshire. Seeing snow outside. Being chased by a Canada Goose at Newstead Abbey (which to my toddler’s mind was called Newster-dabbie).
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h The point of the "Triple Lock" was that it was supposed to facilitate a period of catch-up in the state pension. When did it switch from that concept - a temporary catch-up phase - to becoming some kind of sacred commitment for all eternity?
This week's budget has already been written off as the worst budget in my long lifetime by the worst Chancellor ever (Kwasi doesn't count - reign too short).
However, unless I've missed it, the huge myriad of fatal missteps hasn't actually happened yet. It remains possible that Rachel surprises on the upside - not in the eyes of PBers, most of whom she has already lost, but in the eyes of those who would consider voting Labour at some point in the future. I wouldn't write off Rachel or Keir just yet. Though I may have a different view by Thursday.
Keir and Rachel are new to this lark. They have the mindset that its all about fire fighting. They don't understand That's not what people vote for. It's not what gets you out of a hole. Yes they want competence but that's a basic.....but more than that they want a vision.....
I heard Chris Peckham say yesterday that China now produces half the world's renewables and we are actually buying energy off them. "It's completely crazy!" He shouted! I had no idea whether it was or not but it sounded like it was.
Why weren't we producing our own?
Why isn't it going to be the first mention in Rachel's budget?.......
Why isn't Chris Peckham our PM?
Why isn't TSE writing headlines like "From Keir to Eternity"
Anyway on topic: SKS. Keir Starmer. Our PM. At current prices I’m more a layer than a backer of a 2026 exit, however I do think somebody else will likely be leading Labour into the next election. The root of the problem isn’t policy it’s personality. He is unable (apart from that appearance on Desert Island Discs which was perhaps a fluke) to forge an emotional connection with the public. That’s why his personal ratings are rock bottom. It’s hellish hard to fix this. He’d need to reinvent himself, create a new and vibrant public persona, but the catch 22 is if he were the sort of person who could create vibrant public personas there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. It’s a bummer but there we are. Faking authenticity is a key part of the toolset for the modern politician and he’s missing it.
It is both policy and personality although they are related. Too timid, too cautious and says things which aren't backed strongly enough by actions applies to both policy and personality.
Yes for sure. But I think the 'crisis', the cratered ratings, the fact he's odds-on to be out next year, is mainly down to the lack of chemistry between him and the public. If he had more of that, keeping all else the same, the polls would be better and there'd be far less (if any) leadership speculation imo. It'd still be a struggle though - because the promised CHANGE was never going to be felt quickly unless they got very lucky on the global (and hence UK) economy.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h The point of the "Triple Lock" was that it was supposed to facilitate a period of catch-up in the state pension. When did it switch from that concept - a temporary catch-up phase - to becoming some kind of sacred commitment for all eternity?
Always disconcerting when I completely agree with the likes of Lilico, but he has this one spot on.
Lilico is one of those commentators whose opinions are not always lazily predictable. Like Tom Harwood. Though fiscal dryness is not particularly surprising from him.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Indeed, I was born in 1975. The irony of the UK IMF pogramme is that the UK didn't actually need it. It was based on economic data that were subsequently revised higher. The utility of the IMF of course is that it allows the government to do stuff that it knows to be necessary but doesn't want to take the blame for - those meanies from Washington made me do it! It provides market participants with some guarantee that things won't blow up and so allows the government to borrow more cheaply. There is too much stigma attached to IMF programmes IMHO.
Developed countries with floating exchange rates never "need" IMF programs - implementing moderately competent economic policy is always the solution. Arguing that the UK didn't "need" it in 1975, based on data revisions, as Healey did, smacks of trying to wriggle out of responsibility for a devastating party and national humiliation. As usual, the Labour Party was so incompetent and deluded at managing the economy that some kind of external intervention would have been needed at some point to install competent economic policy. So even if Healey could have staved off appealing for a couple more quarters, he'd have been more than likely to go a bit later anyway.
And it is absolutely right that a huge stigma is attached to IMF programs in developed countries (unless maybe they face some huge, exceptional and unpredictable shock, which we clearly don't) - firstly because it shows they've forgotten basic economics, and secondly because the IMF doesn't have infinite resources, and the money required should be targeted on countries, such as those in Africa or South Asia without deep capital markets, that actually need it, not lazy and spendthrift political classes and interest groups in countries that should be able to manage their economies competently.
Britain needs nuclear power. Our nuclear projects are the most expensive in the world and among the slowest. Regulators and industry are paralysed by risk aversion. This can change. For Britain to prosper, it must.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister appointed me to lead a Taskforce to set out a path to getting affordable, fast nuclear power Britain.
Our final report today sets out 47 recommendations, among them:
- Creating a one-stop shop for nuclear approvals, to end the regulatory merry-go-round that delays projects at the moment. - Simplifying environmental rules to avoid extreme outcomes like Hinkley Point C spending £700m on systems to protect one salmon every ten years, while enhancing nuclear's impact on nature. - Limiting the ability of spurious legal challenges to delay nuclear projects, which adds huge cost and delay throughout the supply chain. - Approving fleets of reactors, so that Britain’s nuclear industry can benefit from certainty and economies of scale. - Directing regulators to factor in cost to their behaviour, and changing their culture to allow building cheaply, quickly and safely. - Changing the culture of the nuclear industry to end gold-plating and focus on efficient, safe delivery.
If the government adopts our report in full, it will send a signal to investors that it is serious about pro-growth reform and taking on vested interests for the public good.
A thriving British nuclear industry producing abundant, affordable energy would be good for jobs, good for manufacturing, good for the climate, and good for the cost of living. And it could enable Britain to become an AI and technology superpower.
Britain can be a world leader in this new Industrial Revolution, but only if it has the energy to power it.
Our report is bold, but balanced. Our recommendations, taken together and properly implemented, will forge a clear path for stronger economic growth through improved productivity and innovation. This is a prize worth fighting for.
A shame they didn't do this a year ago, but it should indeed be adopted in full.
SpaceX’s founding story is 2002 Elon calculating all the commodity prices of the steel, carbon fibre, propellant, etc for building a rocket and realising they only made up 2% of the price. He noticed the capacity for 50x cost savings and went on to realise them.
I’ve ran similar numbers for British nuclear and found something similar: the concrete, copper cable, steel, and so on add up to ~£100m per GW of capacity, while Hinckley point C is costing ~£10B/GW.
Transformative regulatory and industry changes that can make nuclear the cheapest and most reliable energy source in history are possible, and this is the first report I’ve read that understands this potential while also offering good first step recommendations for the industry at large. https://x.com/BernoulliDefect/status/1992910271715643449
The other thing to note is that people trained under the US Navy nuclear power program - where safety rules as a king, and there are huge margins built into the reactor system etc - decry the US civilian program.
They are in a position to say, since people who retire from the US Navy often go to work in the civilian nuclear industry - good pay and there is high demand for their skills.
Civilian nuclear regulation is both useless for safety (even detrimental) and insanely expensive, is their typical comment.
This is because a regulation doesn’t necessarily make things better. It can actually make things worse.
£700m to save a few fish at Hinckley, for example.
£1m spent elsewhere in river conservation would have had a more beneficial effect. £10m would be massively more beneficial.
So £600m plus wasted on essentially nothing.
Green lobbying against development simply doesn't recognise the concept of value for money in conservation.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
Not that much, compare the average Poles work ethic to the average French employees work ethic
I’ve worked in French offices. It’s a very different experience to the UK.
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
I thought productivity was more to do with the quality of infrastructure and job training, areas where the UK scores low,
If it were all about working heads down for long hours many poor countries would very much richer.
But it's also about Britain's tendency to value presenteeism.
Being in the office, even if you aren't achieving much, is seen as better the getting stuff done and then going- either to an agreeable bistro or home.
(See the 4 day week hooh hah. The idea that there's a limit to how much quality thinking we can do in a week, and it's closer to four office days than five, just doesn't compute as well in the UK. Probably that protestant work ethic.)
The 4 vs 5 day week is one for the free market to solve. Companies will try both and if one option is far better than the other then they will replace the inefficient group over time.
Yet the politicians who consider them most aligned with the free market concept, like Redwood or Rees Mogg, got apoplectic over the issue and felt the need for the state to strongly intervene in what is acceptable rather than let it be decided by efficiency.
A list of their various budgetary speculations. If this bears any relation to reality, the mistakes will be the same as previously. Too time, too much tactics and too little strategy, deckchairs on the Titanic. The backing down part way seems especially mistaken.
The latest poor little me story. Council Tax doubled on a £500k second house in the Cotswolds. 4 bed. Couple just about at retirement age. The line is "all we put into the local community", but I think that perhaps a family living there year round would put more back in.
Anyway on topic: SKS. Keir Starmer. Our PM. At current prices I’m more a layer than a backer of a 2026 exit, however I do think somebody else will likely be leading Labour into the next election. The root of the problem isn’t policy it’s personality. He is unable (apart from that appearance on Desert Island Discs which was perhaps a fluke) to forge an emotional connection with the public. That’s why his personal ratings are rock bottom. It’s hellish hard to fix this. He’d need to reinvent himself, create a new and vibrant public persona, but the catch 22 is if he were the sort of person who could create vibrant public personas there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. It’s a bummer but there we are. Faking authenticity is a key part of the toolset for the modern politician and he’s missing it.
It is both policy and personality although they are related. Too timid, too cautious and says things which aren't backed strongly enough by actions applies to both policy and personality.
Yes for sure. But I think the 'crisis', the cratered ratings, the fact he's odds-on to be out next year, is mainly down to the lack of chemistry between him and the public. If he had more of that, keeping all else the same, the polls would be better and there'd be far less (if any) leadership speculation imo. It'd still be a struggle though - because the promised CHANGE was never going to be felt quickly unless they got very lucky on the global (and hence UK) economy.
Something that is hardly mentioned on this is his starting point.
He had the lowest share of the vote of any PM since Ramsay McDonalds minority govt in 1923. so he simply wasn't popular to start with. And he has never had any significant aligned media backers which is a first in my lifetime.
Casting caution to the winds, isn't this a pretty easy "buy" for 2027 or after?
There's no mechanism for making him leave, he has sufficient loyalist Labour MPs to overcome even a large revolt, he's genuinely too pig-headed to leave of his own accord, and he's perfectly capable of barricading himself in Downing Street or buggering off to Foreign Climes instead of facing down his critics.
Matthew Parris (I know, I know) said during the Gordon Brown sulk that whenever anybody says "we can't go on like this", it usually turns out that you can, for several months if not years. Given there are now only 13.5 months until Dec312026, 11/10 may be value.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h The point of the "Triple Lock" was that it was supposed to facilitate a period of catch-up in the state pension. When did it switch from that concept - a temporary catch-up phase - to becoming some kind of sacred commitment for all eternity?
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
Depends who you work for. If you work on a non- managerial role for Sony in Pencoed you are technically on a zero hours contract with Hays. It was like this during the golden economic years of the Boris Tories too.
I am still reading the COVID-19 Inquiry second report...
6.42. Mr Johnson, Mr Sunak and the Treasury also failed to consult or inform other UK government decision-makers, including Mr Hancock and senior advisers in the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Covid-19 Taskforce, about the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.112 These decision-makers, along with the devolved administrations, were deprived of the opportunity to raise any concerns or to influence the scheme.
6.43. Mr Johnson initially told the Inquiry that the Eat Out to Help Out scheme was “properly discussed, including with Chris [Whitty] and Patrick [Vallance]”.113 However, he subsequently confirmed that no scientific advisers were present at his meetings with Mr Sunak at which the scheme was discussed.114 The Treasury, Mr Sunak and Mr Johnson failed to seek scientific advice in relation to the potential epidemiological risks of the scheme, despite being advised by Professor Whitty about the risk of indoor hospitality settings.115 Professor Whitty explained:
“I do not think Treasury officials would have needed to consult me to know what I would have said however … I highlighted the risks of hospitality venues from very early in the pandemic multiple times.“116
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
Depends who you work for. If you work on a non- managerial role for Sony in Pencoed you are technically on a zero hours contract with Hays. It was like this during the golden economic years of the Boris Tories too.
Are Sony still based there ?
Used to sell them Plastic moulded parts over 30 years ago !!
6.47. Mr Case complained about Mr Johnson: “He changes strategic direction every day (Monday we were all about fear of virus returning as per Europe, March etc – today we were in ‘let it rip’ mode cos the UK is pathetic, needs a cold shower etc). He cannot lead and we cannot support him in leading with this approach. The team captain cannot change the call on big plays every day.“122
Britain needs nuclear power. Our nuclear projects are the most expensive in the world and among the slowest. Regulators and industry are paralysed by risk aversion. This can change. For Britain to prosper, it must.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister appointed me to lead a Taskforce to set out a path to getting affordable, fast nuclear power Britain.
Our final report today sets out 47 recommendations, among them:
- Creating a one-stop shop for nuclear approvals, to end the regulatory merry-go-round that delays projects at the moment. - Simplifying environmental rules to avoid extreme outcomes like Hinkley Point C spending £700m on systems to protect one salmon every ten years, while enhancing nuclear's impact on nature. - Limiting the ability of spurious legal challenges to delay nuclear projects, which adds huge cost and delay throughout the supply chain. - Approving fleets of reactors, so that Britain’s nuclear industry can benefit from certainty and economies of scale. - Directing regulators to factor in cost to their behaviour, and changing their culture to allow building cheaply, quickly and safely. - Changing the culture of the nuclear industry to end gold-plating and focus on efficient, safe delivery.
If the government adopts our report in full, it will send a signal to investors that it is serious about pro-growth reform and taking on vested interests for the public good.
A thriving British nuclear industry producing abundant, affordable energy would be good for jobs, good for manufacturing, good for the climate, and good for the cost of living. And it could enable Britain to become an AI and technology superpower.
Britain can be a world leader in this new Industrial Revolution, but only if it has the energy to power it.
Our report is bold, but balanced. Our recommendations, taken together and properly implemented, will forge a clear path for stronger economic growth through improved productivity and innovation. This is a prize worth fighting for.
A shame they didn't do this a year ago, but it should indeed be adopted in full.
SpaceX’s founding story is 2002 Elon calculating all the commodity prices of the steel, carbon fibre, propellant, etc for building a rocket and realising they only made up 2% of the price. He noticed the capacity for 50x cost savings and went on to realise them.
I’ve ran similar numbers for British nuclear and found something similar: the concrete, copper cable, steel, and so on add up to ~£100m per GW of capacity, while Hinckley point C is costing ~£10B/GW.
Transformative regulatory and industry changes that can make nuclear the cheapest and most reliable energy source in history are possible, and this is the first report I’ve read that understands this potential while also offering good first step recommendations for the industry at large. https://x.com/BernoulliDefect/status/1992910271715643449
The other thing to note is that people trained under the US Navy nuclear power program - where safety rules as a king, and there are huge margins built into the reactor system etc - decry the US civilian program.
They are in a position to say, since people who retire from the US Navy often go to work in the civilian nuclear industry - good pay and there is high demand for their skills.
Civilian nuclear regulation is both useless for safety (even detrimental) and insanely expensive, is their typical comment.
This is because a regulation doesn’t necessarily make things better. It can actually make things worse.
£700m to save a few fish at Hinckley, for example.
£1m spent elsewhere in river conservation would have had a more beneficial effect. £10m would be massively more beneficial.
So £600m plus wasted on essentially nothing.
Green lobbying against development simply doesn't recognise the concept of value for money in conservation.
Even better was trying to specify a percentage of withers on SMR to be asylum seekers.
Yes, one part of government was trying to mandate illegal employment. In the nuclear sector.
The point being that those inventing these rules have no idea what they are doing. Because they need to do something to justify their existence. And they are often generalists who have no domain knowledge.
See the emails etc. from civil servants on how much better BritVolt was to deal with than other tech companies. None of that “arrogant knowing what will work stuff” - that was literally in one email.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h The point of the "Triple Lock" was that it was supposed to facilitate a period of catch-up in the state pension. When did it switch from that concept - a temporary catch-up phase - to becoming some kind of sacred commitment for all eternity?
Always disconcerting when I completely agree with the likes of Lilico, but he has this one spot on.
Is he saying it's caught up?
If there was any off ramp I and many others would be less concerned by it.
And ideally we should be focusing on improving pension credit, perhaps expanding who gets it as well as increasing it, rather than giving an ever increasing share of tax spending (which is what the triple lock, by design, ensures) to the richest cohort in the country.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
The NHS costs roughly £250 per month per person.
On average, but it’s a very unequal distribution. Older people are, on average, greater users of health services. The average Reform voter isn’t paying the same as the average citizen.
Something approaching a third of heathcare spending is incurred during patients' last six months of life.
and ironically many people don't even want it. Common sense has to prevail at some point but I am not holding my breath!
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
Depends who you work for. If you work on a non- managerial role for Sony in Pencoed you are technically on a zero hours contract with Hays. It was like this during the golden economic years of the Boris Tories too.
Are Sony still based there ?
Used to sell them Plastic moulded parts over 30 years ago !!
Moulded in HIPS.
You are Alan Sugar AICMFP.
ETA at one point Sugar more or less had a monopoly on injection moulding for hifi. Probably nearer 60 years ago than 30.
The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.
In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.
The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.
What are these people on (and is it legal)? If you want privacy you lead a private life. If you choose to lead a public life then the public has the right to know if you are a convicted fraudster or not before they vote for you. This really isn't hard.
6.93. Dr Anders Tegnell, Swedish state epidemiologist, was also in favour of further action by the UK government. He told the meeting that “the myth that Sweden did nothing during the pandemic is false“.227 Sweden is frequently cited as a country that did not implement a lockdown but that successfully brought the virus under control. It is true that, rather than imposing mandatory measures, the government issued guidelines recommending social distancing, the avoidance of non-essential travel and working from home where possible. Businesses and primary schools largely remained open. Gatherings of more than 50 people were, however, banned and secondary schools and universities switched to remote learning.228
6.94. In a study that Imperial College London undertook comparing the first wave of the pandemic in the UK, Denmark and Sweden, it found that Sweden achieved almost the same level of reduction in contact rates (as reflected in workplace mobility changes and the proportion of people avoiding public spaces) as many other European countries. These included its neighbour, Denmark, which instituted a suite of mandatory policies. However, Swedish control measures took longer to reduce R below 1 than did the measures adopted by both the UK and Denmark, and achieved a lower overall reduction in R.
The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.
In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.
The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.
What are these people on (and is it legal)? If you want privacy you lead a private life. If you choose to lead a public life then the public has the right to know if you are a convicted fraudster or not before they vote for you. This really isn't hard.
Is it really beyond the resources of the Times to collect this information themselves? Why should the taxpayer fund it?
Any “clampdown on benefit fraud” will last about as long as the first handful of out-of-context Guardian sob-stories of people “kicked out of their homes” or “denied their benefits”.
Must be time for a rehash of the army of loft laggers and of course the annual new year resolution that the civil service will go on a diet with government efficiency savings, finished off with the all time time #1, better tax enforcement. Will mean 100 million new jobs, £100bn saved, £100bn raised....
In all seriousness, a proper push on insulation rather than with the current restrictions on it would make a big difference, particularly with the aim of having heat pumps everywhere if possible.
I wouldn’t trust the people the Government would involve to do it, to correctly do it. As Taz says spray loft insulation has become a grade A disaster because the Government allowed cowboys to do it on the cheap
The Government could subsidise British sheepswool insulation - thus helping beleagured British farmers.
The only reason that British upland sheep farmers can survive is the massive subsidies that already exist. I'm not sure how you could justify even more cash for a sector that doesn't have national security considerations.
I see sheep are obviously public enemy number one with the ecoloon brigade.
I'm just not sure why sheep farmers are more deserving of massive state subsidies in a way that other businesses are not.
The average LFA sheep farm makes losses of £47k per year, and is subsidised by the government by £51k. It's obviously not a feasible enterprise and they don't provide food security in the way that other farms do. Redirect that cash to general cropping and reduce our imports of veg.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
It's just shorthand to wind up the Left about how crap their governance is.
Going cap in hand to the IMF under the Tories - 0
Going cap in hand to the IMF under Laour - 1
In a decade you can add Reform to your list.
I am amazed you missed how appalling your Government was, certainly from 2019. Did you also miss today's news that Boris Johnson was taking a five day impromptu holiday whilst Italians were dropping like flies of COVID in late February 2020. But then he got all the big calls right!
* Caveat emptor this Government are a grave disappointment, but not a patch on the venality and corruption demonstrated half a decade ago by the Conservatives.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
Not that much, compare the average Poles work ethic to the average French employees work ethic
I’ve worked in French offices. It’s a very different experience to the UK.
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
I thought productivity was more to do with the quality of infrastructure and job training, areas where the UK scores low,
If it were all about working heads down for long hours many poor countries would very much richer.
But it's also about Britain's tendency to value presenteeism.
Being in the office, even if you aren't achieving much, is seen as better the getting stuff done and then going- either to an agreeable bistro or home.
(See the 4 day week hooh hah. The idea that there's a limit to how much quality thinking we can do in a week, and it's closer to four office days than five, just doesn't compute as well in the UK. Probably that protestant work ethic.)
The 4 vs 5 day week is one for the free market to solve. Companies will try both and if one option is far better than the other then they will replace the inefficient group over time.
Yet the politicians who consider them most aligned with the free market concept, like Redwood or Rees Mogg, got apoplectic over the issue and felt the need for the state to strongly intervene in what is acceptable rather than let it be decided by efficiency.
Have either of them said anything about how private companies organise themselves?
They’ve had a lot to say about the public sector, who face no competition or market, deciding with little evidence to pay their staff 100% of their pay for 80% of the hours.
Any “clampdown on benefit fraud” will last about as long as the first handful of out-of-context Guardian sob-stories of people “kicked out of their homes” or “denied their benefits”.
Must be time for a rehash of the army of loft laggers and of course the annual new year resolution that the civil service will go on a diet with government efficiency savings, finished off with the all time time #1, better tax enforcement. Will mean 100 million new jobs, £100bn saved, £100bn raised....
In all seriousness, a proper push on insulation rather than with the current restrictions on it would make a big difference, particularly with the aim of having heat pumps everywhere if possible.
I wouldn’t trust the people the Government would involve to do it, to correctly do it. As Taz says spray loft insulation has become a grade A disaster because the Government allowed cowboys to do it on the cheap
The Government could subsidise British sheepswool insulation - thus helping beleagured British farmers.
The only reason that British upland sheep farmers can survive is the massive subsidies that already exist. I'm not sure how you could justify even more cash for a sector that doesn't have national security considerations.
I see sheep are obviously public enemy number one with the ecoloon brigade.
I'm just not sure why sheep farmers are more deserving of massive state subsidies in a way that other businesses are not.
The average LFA sheep farm makes losses of £47k per year, and is subsidised by the government by £51k. It's obviously not a feasible enterprise and they don't provide food security in the way that other farms do. Redirect that cash to general cropping and reduce our imports of veg.
Agriculture around the world, is subsidised.
If we stop subsidising, there will be, fairly shortly, no agriculture.
Unless we fire up the Corn Laws - and stop cheap, subsidised imports
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
Not that much, compare the average Poles work ethic to the average French employees work ethic
I’ve worked in French offices. It’s a very different experience to the UK.
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
I thought productivity was more to do with the quality of infrastructure and job training, areas where the UK scores low,
If it were all about working heads down for long hours many poor countries would very much richer.
But it's also about Britain's tendency to value presenteeism.
Being in the office, even if you aren't achieving much, is seen as better the getting stuff done and then going- either to an agreeable bistro or home.
(See the 4 day week hooh hah. The idea that there's a limit to how much quality thinking we can do in a week, and it's closer to four office days than five, just doesn't compute as well in the UK. Probably that protestant work ethic.)
The 4 vs 5 day week is one for the free market to solve. Companies will try both and if one option is far better than the other then they will replace the inefficient group over time.
Yet the politicians who consider them most aligned with the free market concept, like Redwood or Rees Mogg, got apoplectic over the issue and felt the need for the state to strongly intervene in what is acceptable rather than let it be decided by efficiency.
Have either of them said anything about how private companies organise themselves?
They’ve had a lot to say about the public sector, who face no competition or market, deciding with little evidence to pay their staff 100% of their pay for 80% of the hours.
I think there was a grand total of 1 council who did that and while it resolved recruitment issues it seems to have created others...
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
Depends who you work for. If you work on a non- managerial role for Sony in Pencoed you are technically on a zero hours contract with Hays. It was like this during the golden economic years of the Boris Tories too.
Are Sony still based there ?
Used to sell them Plastic moulded parts over 30 years ago !!
Moulded in HIPS.
Just in Pencoed, my son works there. The Bridgend plant died alongside CRT tellies.
Any “clampdown on benefit fraud” will last about as long as the first handful of out-of-context Guardian sob-stories of people “kicked out of their homes” or “denied their benefits”.
Must be time for a rehash of the army of loft laggers and of course the annual new year resolution that the civil service will go on a diet with government efficiency savings, finished off with the all time time #1, better tax enforcement. Will mean 100 million new jobs, £100bn saved, £100bn raised....
In all seriousness, a proper push on insulation rather than with the current restrictions on it would make a big difference, particularly with the aim of having heat pumps everywhere if possible.
I wouldn’t trust the people the Government would involve to do it, to correctly do it. As Taz says spray loft insulation has become a grade A disaster because the Government allowed cowboys to do it on the cheap
The Government could subsidise British sheepswool insulation - thus helping beleagured British farmers.
The only reason that British upland sheep farmers can survive is the massive subsidies that already exist. I'm not sure how you could justify even more cash for a sector that doesn't have national security considerations.
I see sheep are obviously public enemy number one with the ecoloon brigade.
I'm just not sure why sheep farmers are more deserving of massive state subsidies in a way that other businesses are not.
The average LFA sheep farm makes losses of £47k per year, and is subsidised by the government by £51k. It's obviously not a feasible enterprise and they don't provide food security in the way that other farms do. Redirect that cash to general cropping and reduce our imports of veg.
Agriculture around the world, is subsidised.
If we stop subsidising, there will be, fairly shortly, no agriculture.
Unless we fire up the Corn Laws - and stop cheap, subsidised imports
Oh I agree - the subsidies we make to cereals and, general cropping etc are sensible for a doomsday autarky scenario. We should probably increase them, using the cash that we currently spend on sheep farms.
I am still reading the COVID-19 Inquiry second report...
6.42. Mr Johnson, Mr Sunak and the Treasury also failed to consult or inform other UK government decision-makers, including Mr Hancock and senior advisers in the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Covid-19 Taskforce, about the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.112 These decision-makers, along with the devolved administrations, were deprived of the opportunity to raise any concerns or to influence the scheme.
6.43. Mr Johnson initially told the Inquiry that the Eat Out to Help Out scheme was “properly discussed, including with Chris [Whitty] and Patrick [Vallance]”.113 However, he subsequently confirmed that no scientific advisers were present at his meetings with Mr Sunak at which the scheme was discussed.114 The Treasury, Mr Sunak and Mr Johnson failed to seek scientific advice in relation to the potential epidemiological risks of the scheme, despite being advised by Professor Whitty about the risk of indoor hospitality settings.115 Professor Whitty explained:
“I do not think Treasury officials would have needed to consult me to know what I would have said however … I highlighted the risks of hospitality venues from very early in the pandemic multiple times.“116
I think EOTHO is a slight red herring. We had also opened up to foreign travel too, and that allowed the importation of lots of cases from overseas. In Aussie you had to isolate in a hotel for (3 weeks?). I seem to remember Adam Hills doing that. We did nothing of the sort.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
Depends who you work for. If you work on a non- managerial role for Sony in Pencoed you are technically on a zero hours contract with Hays. It was like this during the golden economic years of the Boris Tories too.
Are Sony still based there ?
Used to sell them Plastic moulded parts over 30 years ago !!
Moulded in HIPS.
Just in Pencoed, my son works there. The Bridgend plant died alongside CRT tellies.
Who did you work for? Diaplastics, Ninkaplast.
Neither.
Dealt with a guy called Peter Rees IIRC. Company was PMC.
Our mouldings were small, 75-125 T presses and tended to be the display strips and other smaller stuff like the fold down flap.
Britain needs nuclear power. Our nuclear projects are the most expensive in the world and among the slowest. Regulators and industry are paralysed by risk aversion. This can change. For Britain to prosper, it must.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister appointed me to lead a Taskforce to set out a path to getting affordable, fast nuclear power Britain.
Our final report today sets out 47 recommendations, among them:
- Creating a one-stop shop for nuclear approvals, to end the regulatory merry-go-round that delays projects at the moment. - Simplifying environmental rules to avoid extreme outcomes like Hinkley Point C spending £700m on systems to protect one salmon every ten years, while enhancing nuclear's impact on nature. - Limiting the ability of spurious legal challenges to delay nuclear projects, which adds huge cost and delay throughout the supply chain. - Approving fleets of reactors, so that Britain’s nuclear industry can benefit from certainty and economies of scale. - Directing regulators to factor in cost to their behaviour, and changing their culture to allow building cheaply, quickly and safely. - Changing the culture of the nuclear industry to end gold-plating and focus on efficient, safe delivery.
If the government adopts our report in full, it will send a signal to investors that it is serious about pro-growth reform and taking on vested interests for the public good.
A thriving British nuclear industry producing abundant, affordable energy would be good for jobs, good for manufacturing, good for the climate, and good for the cost of living. And it could enable Britain to become an AI and technology superpower.
Britain can be a world leader in this new Industrial Revolution, but only if it has the energy to power it.
Our report is bold, but balanced. Our recommendations, taken together and properly implemented, will forge a clear path for stronger economic growth through improved productivity and innovation. This is a prize worth fighting for.
A shame they didn't do this a year ago, but it should indeed be adopted in full.
SpaceX’s founding story is 2002 Elon calculating all the commodity prices of the steel, carbon fibre, propellant, etc for building a rocket and realising they only made up 2% of the price. He noticed the capacity for 50x cost savings and went on to realise them.
I’ve ran similar numbers for British nuclear and found something similar: the concrete, copper cable, steel, and so on add up to ~£100m per GW of capacity, while Hinckley point C is costing ~£10B/GW.
Transformative regulatory and industry changes that can make nuclear the cheapest and most reliable energy source in history are possible, and this is the first report I’ve read that understands this potential while also offering good first step recommendations for the industry at large. https://x.com/BernoulliDefect/status/1992910271715643449
The other thing to note is that people trained under the US Navy nuclear power program - where safety rules as a king, and there are huge margins built into the reactor system etc - decry the US civilian program.
They are in a position to say, since people who retire from the US Navy often go to work in the civilian nuclear industry - good pay and there is high demand for their skills.
Civilian nuclear regulation is both useless for safety (even detrimental) and insanely expensive, is their typical comment.
This is because a regulation doesn’t necessarily make things better. It can actually make things worse.
£700m to save a few fish at Hinckley, for example.
£1m spent elsewhere in river conservation would have had a more beneficial effect. £10m would be massively more beneficial.
So £600m plus wasted on essentially nothing.
Green lobbying against development simply doesn't recognise the concept of value for money in conservation.
Even better was trying to specify a percentage of withers on SMR to be asylum seekers.
Yes, one part of government was trying to mandate illegal employment. In the nuclear sector.
The point being that those inventing these rules have no idea what they are doing. Because they need to do something to justify their existence. And they are often generalists who have no domain knowledge.
See the emails etc. from civil servants on how much better BritVolt was to deal with than other tech companies. None of that “arrogant knowing what will work stuff” - that was literally in one email.
I am still reading the COVID-19 Inquiry second report...
6.42. Mr Johnson, Mr Sunak and the Treasury also failed to consult or inform other UK government decision-makers, including Mr Hancock and senior advisers in the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Covid-19 Taskforce, about the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.112 These decision-makers, along with the devolved administrations, were deprived of the opportunity to raise any concerns or to influence the scheme.
6.43. Mr Johnson initially told the Inquiry that the Eat Out to Help Out scheme was “properly discussed, including with Chris [Whitty] and Patrick [Vallance]”.113 However, he subsequently confirmed that no scientific advisers were present at his meetings with Mr Sunak at which the scheme was discussed.114 The Treasury, Mr Sunak and Mr Johnson failed to seek scientific advice in relation to the potential epidemiological risks of the scheme, despite being advised by Professor Whitty about the risk of indoor hospitality settings.115 Professor Whitty explained:
“I do not think Treasury officials would have needed to consult me to know what I would have said however … I highlighted the risks of hospitality venues from very early in the pandemic multiple times.“116
And the lessons for any future pandemic are what exactly? Don't let Boris run the show? He's out already.
On the one hand, it is important to record what happened during the pandemic, although surely the Civil Service will have minuted all these meetings anyway. On the other, we've spent three years and a hundred megaquid on grandstanding lawyers pursuing what are basically gossip stories with nothing on how to prepare for, and then combat, the next pandemic. No wonder we can't get a motorway built.
I am still reading the COVID-19 Inquiry second report...
6.42. Mr Johnson, Mr Sunak and the Treasury also failed to consult or inform other UK government decision-makers, including Mr Hancock and senior advisers in the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Covid-19 Taskforce, about the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.112 These decision-makers, along with the devolved administrations, were deprived of the opportunity to raise any concerns or to influence the scheme.
6.43. Mr Johnson initially told the Inquiry that the Eat Out to Help Out scheme was “properly discussed, including with Chris [Whitty] and Patrick [Vallance]”.113 However, he subsequently confirmed that no scientific advisers were present at his meetings with Mr Sunak at which the scheme was discussed.114 The Treasury, Mr Sunak and Mr Johnson failed to seek scientific advice in relation to the potential epidemiological risks of the scheme, despite being advised by Professor Whitty about the risk of indoor hospitality settings.115 Professor Whitty explained:
“I do not think Treasury officials would have needed to consult me to know what I would have said however … I highlighted the risks of hospitality venues from very early in the pandemic multiple times.“116
And the lessons for any future pandemic are what exactly? Don't let Boris run the show? He's out already.
On the one hand, it is important to record what happened during the pandemic, although surely the Civil Service will have minuted all these meetings anyway. On the other, we've spent three years and a hundred megaquid on grandstanding lawyers pursuing what are basically gossip stories with nothing on how to prepare for, and then combat, the next pandemic. No wonder we can't get a motorway built.
The idea lessons from this inquiry will be learnt in the pandemic of 2120 is one of the more curious examples of groupthink.
Sarah Montague has John McDonnell on WATO. He is giving her pro-government answers she wasn't expecting. She is getting very frustrated. The poor lady is desperately trying her best to put into practice Robbie Gibb's anti- government diktat.
Any “clampdown on benefit fraud” will last about as long as the first handful of out-of-context Guardian sob-stories of people “kicked out of their homes” or “denied their benefits”.
Must be time for a rehash of the army of loft laggers and of course the annual new year resolution that the civil service will go on a diet with government efficiency savings, finished off with the all time time #1, better tax enforcement. Will mean 100 million new jobs, £100bn saved, £100bn raised....
In all seriousness, a proper push on insulation rather than with the current restrictions on it would make a big difference, particularly with the aim of having heat pumps everywhere if possible.
I wouldn’t trust the people the Government would involve to do it, to correctly do it. As Taz says spray loft insulation has become a grade A disaster because the Government allowed cowboys to do it on the cheap
The Government could subsidise British sheepswool insulation - thus helping beleagured British farmers.
The only reason that British upland sheep farmers can survive is the massive subsidies that already exist. I'm not sure how you could justify even more cash for a sector that doesn't have national security considerations.
I see sheep are obviously public enemy number one with the ecoloon brigade.
I'm just not sure why sheep farmers are more deserving of massive state subsidies in a way that other businesses are not.
The average LFA sheep farm makes losses of £47k per year, and is subsidised by the government by £51k. It's obviously not a feasible enterprise and they don't provide food security in the way that other farms do. Redirect that cash to general cropping and reduce our imports of veg.
Agriculture around the world, is subsidised.
If we stop subsidising, there will be, fairly shortly, no agriculture.
Unless we fire up the Corn Laws - and stop cheap, subsidised imports
Why? The land would still be there, ready and available to be used.
New Zealand abolished its agriculture tariffs and subsidies, and the sector thrived.
6.93. Dr Anders Tegnell, Swedish state epidemiologist, was also in favour of further action by the UK government. He told the meeting that “the myth that Sweden did nothing during the pandemic is false“.227 Sweden is frequently cited as a country that did not implement a lockdown but that successfully brought the virus under control. It is true that, rather than imposing mandatory measures, the government issued guidelines recommending social distancing, the avoidance of non-essential travel and working from home where possible. Businesses and primary schools largely remained open. Gatherings of more than 50 people were, however, banned and secondary schools and universities switched to remote learning.228
Sweden did some good things and some bad things - I believe they also had mass deaths at some care homes, for example.
Their approach reads as quite similar to that of Japan, which was notably more successful balancing economic costs and preventing deaths (which might have something to do with their more or less universal adoption of masking, and greater adoption of social distancing... though there are other hypotheses).
Britain needs nuclear power. Our nuclear projects are the most expensive in the world and among the slowest. Regulators and industry are paralysed by risk aversion. This can change. For Britain to prosper, it must.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister appointed me to lead a Taskforce to set out a path to getting affordable, fast nuclear power Britain.
Our final report today sets out 47 recommendations, among them:
- Creating a one-stop shop for nuclear approvals, to end the regulatory merry-go-round that delays projects at the moment. - Simplifying environmental rules to avoid extreme outcomes like Hinkley Point C spending £700m on systems to protect one salmon every ten years, while enhancing nuclear's impact on nature. - Limiting the ability of spurious legal challenges to delay nuclear projects, which adds huge cost and delay throughout the supply chain. - Approving fleets of reactors, so that Britain’s nuclear industry can benefit from certainty and economies of scale. - Directing regulators to factor in cost to their behaviour, and changing their culture to allow building cheaply, quickly and safely. - Changing the culture of the nuclear industry to end gold-plating and focus on efficient, safe delivery.
If the government adopts our report in full, it will send a signal to investors that it is serious about pro-growth reform and taking on vested interests for the public good.
A thriving British nuclear industry producing abundant, affordable energy would be good for jobs, good for manufacturing, good for the climate, and good for the cost of living. And it could enable Britain to become an AI and technology superpower.
Britain can be a world leader in this new Industrial Revolution, but only if it has the energy to power it.
Our report is bold, but balanced. Our recommendations, taken together and properly implemented, will forge a clear path for stronger economic growth through improved productivity and innovation. This is a prize worth fighting for.
A shame they didn't do this a year ago, but it should indeed be adopted in full.
SpaceX’s founding story is 2002 Elon calculating all the commodity prices of the steel, carbon fibre, propellant, etc for building a rocket and realising they only made up 2% of the price. He noticed the capacity for 50x cost savings and went on to realise them.
I’ve ran similar numbers for British nuclear and found something similar: the concrete, copper cable, steel, and so on add up to ~£100m per GW of capacity, while Hinckley point C is costing ~£10B/GW.
Transformative regulatory and industry changes that can make nuclear the cheapest and most reliable energy source in history are possible, and this is the first report I’ve read that understands this potential while also offering good first step recommendations for the industry at large. https://x.com/BernoulliDefect/status/1992910271715643449
The other thing to note is that people trained under the US Navy nuclear power program - where safety rules as a king, and there are huge margins built into the reactor system etc - decry the US civilian program.
They are in a position to say, since people who retire from the US Navy often go to work in the civilian nuclear industry - good pay and there is high demand for their skills.
Civilian nuclear regulation is both useless for safety (even detrimental) and insanely expensive, is their typical comment.
This is because a regulation doesn’t necessarily make things better. It can actually make things worse.
£700m to save a few fish at Hinckley, for example.
£1m spent elsewhere in river conservation would have had a more beneficial effect. £10m would be massively more beneficial.
So £600m plus wasted on essentially nothing.
Green lobbying against development simply doesn't recognise the concept of value for money in conservation.
Even better was trying to specify a percentage of withers on SMR to be asylum seekers.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
It’s one of those loveable journalistic shorthands. Whenever there’s concern about debt repayments we are going “cap in hand” to the IMF. Who first decided the cap in hand term was the right one for these stories?
It’s up there with some other favourites:
- Brits / Britons deployed in specific contexts (Brits when the active subject, Britons when victims of a disaster or stuck abroad) - “Fury as…” - Romp - Boffins - Bosses (rail bosses, bank bosses, union bosses etc) - Sources close to - Police quiz [suspect]
And so on.
The one we have to watch is "top lawyer". You never want to be one of them, believe me.
I am still reading the COVID-19 Inquiry second report...
6.42. Mr Johnson, Mr Sunak and the Treasury also failed to consult or inform other UK government decision-makers, including Mr Hancock and senior advisers in the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Covid-19 Taskforce, about the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.112 These decision-makers, along with the devolved administrations, were deprived of the opportunity to raise any concerns or to influence the scheme.
6.43. Mr Johnson initially told the Inquiry that the Eat Out to Help Out scheme was “properly discussed, including with Chris [Whitty] and Patrick [Vallance]”.113 However, he subsequently confirmed that no scientific advisers were present at his meetings with Mr Sunak at which the scheme was discussed.114 The Treasury, Mr Sunak and Mr Johnson failed to seek scientific advice in relation to the potential epidemiological risks of the scheme, despite being advised by Professor Whitty about the risk of indoor hospitality settings.115 Professor Whitty explained:
“I do not think Treasury officials would have needed to consult me to know what I would have said however … I highlighted the risks of hospitality venues from very early in the pandemic multiple times.“116
I think EOTHO is a slight red herring. We had also opened up to foreign travel too, and that allowed the importation of lots of cases from overseas. In Aussie you had to isolate in a hotel for (3 weeks?). I seem to remember Adam Hills doing that. We did nothing of the sort.
The overseas travel was crazy. It was obvious that as soon as it was allowed millions of people would rush for the airport and spend a fortnight in any resport destination that was open, mixing with people from all over the world.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
Depends who you work for. If you work on a non- managerial role for Sony in Pencoed you are technically on a zero hours contract with Hays. It was like this during the golden economic years of the Boris Tories too.
Are Sony still based there ?
Used to sell them Plastic moulded parts over 30 years ago !!
Moulded in HIPS.
Just in Pencoed, my son works there. The Bridgend plant died alongside CRT tellies.
Who did you work for? Diaplastics, Ninkaplast.
Neither.
Dealt with a guy called Peter Rees IIRC. Company was PMC.
Our mouldings were small, 75-125 T presses and tended to be the display strips and other smaller stuff like the fold down flap.
When I was at SafetyKleen we rented spray gun cleaning equipment to Dia and Ninka to clean the tampo machines to put the brand names on telly cabinets, and we collected waste thinner.
We had a twice weekly cycle with Ninka. When my guy turned up at 8.00 one Monday morning the place was locked down. At 18.00 on Friday after the employees had left about a dozen trunkers turned up and the plant was stripped out and moved to Eastern Europe. My spraygun cleaning machine was in Poland.
6.93. Dr Anders Tegnell, Swedish state epidemiologist, was also in favour of further action by the UK government. He told the meeting that “the myth that Sweden did nothing during the pandemic is false“.227 Sweden is frequently cited as a country that did not implement a lockdown but that successfully brought the virus under control. It is true that, rather than imposing mandatory measures, the government issued guidelines recommending social distancing, the avoidance of non-essential travel and working from home where possible. Businesses and primary schools largely remained open. Gatherings of more than 50 people were, however, banned and secondary schools and universities switched to remote learning.228
6.94. In a study that Imperial College London undertook comparing the first wave of the pandemic in the UK, Denmark and Sweden, it found that Sweden achieved almost the same level of reduction in contact rates (as reflected in workplace mobility changes and the proportion of people avoiding public spaces) as many other European countries. These included its neighbour, Denmark, which instituted a suite of mandatory policies. However, Swedish control measures took longer to reduce R below 1 than did the measures adopted by both the UK and Denmark, and achieved a lower overall reduction in R.
I am mildly impressed that you are still bothering with this. Very few others are. For most, it is £200m that could have been better spent. End of.
The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.
In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.
The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.
What are these people on (and is it legal)? If you want privacy you lead a private life. If you choose to lead a public life then the public has the right to know if you are a convicted fraudster or not before they vote for you. This really isn't hard.
Is it really beyond the resources of the Times to collect this information themselves? Why should the taxpayer fund it?
Because our defamation laws mean that you have to be very, very careful about making such an allegation without an extract of the conviction (which are not publicly available)?
8.28. There was sufficient information available by October 2020 for decision-makers to understand that Long Covid was a significant policy and health issue to be tackled.72 However, the UK government – in particular Mr Johnson – remained slow to acknowledge the seriousness and prevalence of the condition and to direct that greater attention be paid to how it could be addressed, mitigated and taken into account in decision-making on strategy and the imposition of interventions. In October 2020, Mr Johnson wrote “BOLLOCKS” on a box note relating to Long Covid.73 He acknowledged that it took him “some time to recognise that long Covid was a serious condition“, adding: “For some time, therefore, I was not convinced that long Covid truly existed.“74 Imran Shafi (Private Secretary to the Prime Minister for public services from March 2018 to March 2021) advised Mr Johnson in January 2021 that he was obtaining “objective clinical advice” on the extent to which Long Covid was a “reasonable policy consideration“.75
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
Depends who you work for. If you work on a non- managerial role for Sony in Pencoed you are technically on a zero hours contract with Hays. It was like this during the golden economic years of the Boris Tories too.
Are Sony still based there ?
Used to sell them Plastic moulded parts over 30 years ago !!
Moulded in HIPS.
Just in Pencoed, my son works there. The Bridgend plant died alongside CRT tellies.
Who did you work for? Diaplastics, Ninkaplast.
Neither.
Dealt with a guy called Peter Rees IIRC. Company was PMC.
Our mouldings were small, 75-125 T presses and tended to be the display strips and other smaller stuff like the fold down flap.
When I was at SafetyKleen we rented spray gun cleaning equipment to Dia and Ninka to clean the tampo machines to put the brand names on telly cabinets, and we collected waste thinner.
We had a twice weekly cycle with Ninka. When my guy turned up at 8.00 one Monday morning the place was locked down. At 18.00 on Friday after the employees had left about a dozen trunkers turned up and the plant was stripped out and moved to Eastern Europe. My spraygun cleaning machine was in Poland.
Hope you got it back, or they novated the contract.
As it would not be on their asset register and, presumably, the contract was to rent it at that site a bit dodgy them moving it like that. Probably worried something would get out.
8.28. There was sufficient information available by October 2020 for decision-makers to understand that Long Covid was a significant policy and health issue to be tackled.72 However, the UK government – in particular Mr Johnson – remained slow to acknowledge the seriousness and prevalence of the condition and to direct that greater attention be paid to how it could be addressed, mitigated and taken into account in decision-making on strategy and the imposition of interventions. In October 2020, Mr Johnson wrote “BOLLOCKS” on a box note relating to Long Covid.73 He acknowledged that it took him “some time to recognise that long Covid was a serious condition“, adding: “For some time, therefore, I was not convinced that long Covid truly existed.“74 Imran Shafi (Private Secretary to the Prime Minister for public services from March 2018 to March 2021) advised Mr Johnson in January 2021 that he was obtaining “objective clinical advice” on the extent to which Long Covid was a “reasonable policy consideration“.75
Have you got to the bit where Boris got all the big calls right yet?
I am still reading the COVID-19 Inquiry second report...
6.42. Mr Johnson, Mr Sunak and the Treasury also failed to consult or inform other UK government decision-makers, including Mr Hancock and senior advisers in the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Covid-19 Taskforce, about the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.112 These decision-makers, along with the devolved administrations, were deprived of the opportunity to raise any concerns or to influence the scheme.
6.43. Mr Johnson initially told the Inquiry that the Eat Out to Help Out scheme was “properly discussed, including with Chris [Whitty] and Patrick [Vallance]”.113 However, he subsequently confirmed that no scientific advisers were present at his meetings with Mr Sunak at which the scheme was discussed.114 The Treasury, Mr Sunak and Mr Johnson failed to seek scientific advice in relation to the potential epidemiological risks of the scheme, despite being advised by Professor Whitty about the risk of indoor hospitality settings.115 Professor Whitty explained:
“I do not think Treasury officials would have needed to consult me to know what I would have said however … I highlighted the risks of hospitality venues from very early in the pandemic multiple times.“116
And the lessons for any future pandemic are what exactly? Don't let Boris run the show? He's out already.
On the one hand, it is important to record what happened during the pandemic, although surely the Civil Service will have minuted all these meetings anyway. On the other, we've spent three years and a hundred megaquid on grandstanding lawyers pursuing what are basically gossip stories with nothing on how to prepare for, and then combat, the next pandemic. No wonder we can't get a motorway built.
The lawyers have delivered the report that Boris commissioned.
There are, however, recommendations in the report as well. (Some are implicit: like, consult with the Department of Health before doing these things, and don't pretend you have when you haven't.) I'm just in the middle of the bit describing what happened rather than in the recommendations bit.
6.93. Dr Anders Tegnell, Swedish state epidemiologist, was also in favour of further action by the UK government. He told the meeting that “the myth that Sweden did nothing during the pandemic is false“.227 Sweden is frequently cited as a country that did not implement a lockdown but that successfully brought the virus under control. It is true that, rather than imposing mandatory measures, the government issued guidelines recommending social distancing, the avoidance of non-essential travel and working from home where possible. Businesses and primary schools largely remained open. Gatherings of more than 50 people were, however, banned and secondary schools and universities switched to remote learning.228
6.94. In a study that Imperial College London undertook comparing the first wave of the pandemic in the UK, Denmark and Sweden, it found that Sweden achieved almost the same level of reduction in contact rates (as reflected in workplace mobility changes and the proportion of people avoiding public spaces) as many other European countries. These included its neighbour, Denmark, which instituted a suite of mandatory policies. However, Swedish control measures took longer to reduce R below 1 than did the measures adopted by both the UK and Denmark, and achieved a lower overall reduction in R.
I am mildly impressed that you are still bothering with this. Very few others are. For most, it is £200m that could have been better spent. End of.
Any “clampdown on benefit fraud” will last about as long as the first handful of out-of-context Guardian sob-stories of people “kicked out of their homes” or “denied their benefits”.
Must be time for a rehash of the army of loft laggers and of course the annual new year resolution that the civil service will go on a diet with government efficiency savings, finished off with the all time time #1, better tax enforcement. Will mean 100 million new jobs, £100bn saved, £100bn raised....
In all seriousness, a proper push on insulation rather than with the current restrictions on it would make a big difference, particularly with the aim of having heat pumps everywhere if possible.
I wouldn’t trust the people the Government would involve to do it, to correctly do it. As Taz says spray loft insulation has become a grade A disaster because the Government allowed cowboys to do it on the cheap
The Government could subsidise British sheepswool insulation - thus helping beleagured British farmers.
The only reason that British upland sheep farmers can survive is the massive subsidies that already exist. I'm not sure how you could justify even more cash for a sector that doesn't have national security considerations.
I see sheep are obviously public enemy number one with the ecoloon brigade.
I'm just not sure why sheep farmers are more deserving of massive state subsidies in a way that other businesses are not.
The average LFA sheep farm makes losses of £47k per year, and is subsidised by the government by £51k. It's obviously not a feasible enterprise and they don't provide food security in the way that other farms do. Redirect that cash to general cropping and reduce our imports of veg.
Agriculture around the world, is subsidised.
If we stop subsidising, there will be, fairly shortly, no agriculture.
Unless we fire up the Corn Laws - and stop cheap, subsidised imports
Oh I agree - the subsidies we make to cereals and, general cropping etc are sensible for a doomsday autarky scenario. We should probably increase them, using the cash that we currently spend on sheep farms.
Only around 15% of Scotland is non LFA land, of this most of it is on the east coast and a lot is already arable. You couldn't turn many units on the west of Scotland into specialist arable, it's far too wet, and the climate is poorer. Same reason why a lot of the grain going into Islay malts is produced off the island!
The problems which have governed arable farming in yield, quality and crop establishment this year are nothing to do with subsidy, or lack of, they are dictated by mother nature, which is something most other business in the UK do not have to contend with on the same scale.
The government knows if you were to rip subsidy fully away from the industry, food security would soon become a big issue in the country. It's easier to keep the sub, which is now almost all paid for land management and environmental schemes rather than livestock production, instead of asking consumers to pay more. Plenty of other businesses not related to national security get subsidised, and have done through covid and since
Sheep numbers in Scotland peaked around the early 90s, when there were approx 4m ewes, now there are 2.4m. Across the UK, they've fallen to around 13.5/14m from over 20m. I'd argue Wales still has too many ewes, I'd expect numbers in England and Wales to keep falling in the coming years.
There has been little change in the amount of sub paid over the last 10 years, in real terms a lot of farms in Scotland will be looking at a 35-40% decrease in subsidy since 2015
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
My memory of that is a school trip to see the Queen.... It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
My memories of the seventies..... Hmmmm. My children were doing reasonably well at school; eldest son got the apprenticeship he wanted at the end of the decade, daughter met the man..... well, a youth then ...... she went on to marry and younger son failed the 11+...... only two boys per primary school 'allowed' to pass to the neighbouring authority's two Grammar Schools, and on the day of the exam he had a cold! I didn't mind too much but it rankled with him for years! Early in the decade the firm I was with was doing quite well, but later I managed to make a few bad decisions which cost us dear.
I think I have three memories from the 1970s! I remember a beautiful light blue scales on the counter of a shop. I remember having mumps one Christmas. And I remember the day we moved house in 1979, the removal men needed to pack the tricycle I was sitting on, and then our new house had bright red carpets.
Fitted carpets? Luxury.
The previous owners were chain smokers and had an incontinent dog so not really, no.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
Depends who you work for. If you work on a non- managerial role for Sony in Pencoed you are technically on a zero hours contract with Hays. It was like this during the golden economic years of the Boris Tories too.
Are Sony still based there ?
Used to sell them Plastic moulded parts over 30 years ago !!
Moulded in HIPS.
Just in Pencoed, my son works there. The Bridgend plant died alongside CRT tellies.
Who did you work for? Diaplastics, Ninkaplast.
Neither.
Dealt with a guy called Peter Rees IIRC. Company was PMC.
Our mouldings were small, 75-125 T presses and tended to be the display strips and other smaller stuff like the fold down flap.
When I was at SafetyKleen we rented spray gun cleaning equipment to Dia and Ninka to clean the tampo machines to put the brand names on telly cabinets, and we collected waste thinner.
We had a twice weekly cycle with Ninka. When my guy turned up at 8.00 one Monday morning the place was locked down. At 18.00 on Friday after the employees had left about a dozen trunkers turned up and the plant was stripped out and moved to Eastern Europe. My spraygun cleaning machine was in Poland.
Hope you got it back, or they novated the contract.
As it would not be on their asset register and, presumably, the contract was to rent it at that site a bit dodgy them moving it like that. Probably worried something would get out.
It ended up at a Safety Kleen branch in Germany. The contract was strictly on a service to service basis, but technically it was theft of our machine.
Casting caution to the winds, isn't this a pretty easy "buy" for 2027 or after?
There's no mechanism for making him leave, he has sufficient loyalist Labour MPs to overcome even a large revolt, he's genuinely too pig-headed to leave of his own accord, and he's perfectly capable of barricading himself in Downing Street or buggering off to Foreign Climes instead of facing down his critics.
Matthew Parris (I know, I know) said during the Gordon Brown sulk that whenever anybody says "we can't go on like this", it usually turns out that you can, for several months if not years. Given there are now only 13.5 months until Dec312026, 11/10 may be value.
Yup. Too many people have been conditioned by recent Tory regicides such that they see it as the norm.
Furthermore, I think many people massively underestimate the chances of Labour and Starmer coming back to win the next election on a much reduced majority (possibly with other party support) and Starmer being able to leave at a time of his choosing after 2028/9.
Were I to bet on this, that’s what I would bet on. The reason I haven’t is that I think we’re at least 12 months out from the polls even turning and a chance to extract a bit of profit. I might go in at Starmer’s nadir next May though.
For full disclosure I did also assume the normal political gravity associated with a majority of seventy squillion would help the Sunak Gvt recover in 2023 and manage a slim majority in 2024. So what do I know?
Any “clampdown on benefit fraud” will last about as long as the first handful of out-of-context Guardian sob-stories of people “kicked out of their homes” or “denied their benefits”.
Must be time for a rehash of the army of loft laggers and of course the annual new year resolution that the civil service will go on a diet with government efficiency savings, finished off with the all time time #1, better tax enforcement. Will mean 100 million new jobs, £100bn saved, £100bn raised....
In all seriousness, a proper push on insulation rather than with the current restrictions on it would make a big difference, particularly with the aim of having heat pumps everywhere if possible.
I wouldn’t trust the people the Government would involve to do it, to correctly do it. As Taz says spray loft insulation has become a grade A disaster because the Government allowed cowboys to do it on the cheap
The Government could subsidise British sheepswool insulation - thus helping beleagured British farmers.
The only reason that British upland sheep farmers can survive is the massive subsidies that already exist. I'm not sure how you could justify even more cash for a sector that doesn't have national security considerations.
I see sheep are obviously public enemy number one with the ecoloon brigade.
I'm just not sure why sheep farmers are more deserving of massive state subsidies in a way that other businesses are not.
The average LFA sheep farm makes losses of £47k per year, and is subsidised by the government by £51k. It's obviously not a feasible enterprise and they don't provide food security in the way that other farms do. Redirect that cash to general cropping and reduce our imports of veg.
Agriculture around the world, is subsidised.
If we stop subsidising, there will be, fairly shortly, no agriculture.
Unless we fire up the Corn Laws - and stop cheap, subsidised imports
Oh I agree - the subsidies we make to cereals and, general cropping etc are sensible for a doomsday autarky scenario. We should probably increase them, using the cash that we currently spend on sheep farms.
Only around 15% of Scotland is non LFA land, of this most of it is on the east coast and a lot is already arable. You couldn't turn many units on the west of Scotland into specialist arable, it's far too wet, and the climate is poorer. Same reason why a lot of the grain going into Islay malts is produced off the island!
The problems which have governed arable farming in yield, quality and crop establishment this year are nothing to do with subsidy, or lack of, they are dictated by mother nature, which is something most other business in the UK do not have to contend with on the same scale.
The government knows if you were to rip subsidy fully away from the industry, food security would soon become a big issue in the country. It's easier to keep the sub, which is now almost all paid for land management and environmental schemes rather than livestock production, instead of asking consumers to pay more. Plenty of other businesses not related to national security get subsidised, and have done through covid and since
Sheep numbers in Scotland peaked around the early 90s, when there were approx 4m ewes, now there are 2.4m. Across the UK, they've fallen to around 13.5/14m from over 20m. I'd argue Wales still has too many ewes, I'd expect numbers in England and Wales to keep falling in the coming years.
There has been little change in the amount of sub paid over the last 10 years, in real terms a lot of farms in Scotland will be looking at a 35-40% decrease in subsidy since 2015
Meanwhile the price of lamb soars.
Beef is now cheaper, often. Venison is the cheap option….
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
Depends who you work for. If you work on a non- managerial role for Sony in Pencoed you are technically on a zero hours contract with Hays. It was like this during the golden economic years of the Boris Tories too.
Are Sony still based there ?
Used to sell them Plastic moulded parts over 30 years ago !!
Moulded in HIPS.
Just in Pencoed, my son works there. The Bridgend plant died alongside CRT tellies.
Who did you work for? Diaplastics, Ninkaplast.
Neither.
Dealt with a guy called Peter Rees IIRC. Company was PMC.
Our mouldings were small, 75-125 T presses and tended to be the display strips and other smaller stuff like the fold down flap.
When I was at SafetyKleen we rented spray gun cleaning equipment to Dia and Ninka to clean the tampo machines to put the brand names on telly cabinets, and we collected waste thinner.
We had a twice weekly cycle with Ninka. When my guy turned up at 8.00 one Monday morning the place was locked down. At 18.00 on Friday after the employees had left about a dozen trunkers turned up and the plant was stripped out and moved to Eastern Europe. My spraygun cleaning machine was in Poland.
Hope you got it back, or they novated the contract.
As it would not be on their asset register and, presumably, the contract was to rent it at that site a bit dodgy them moving it like that. Probably worried something would get out.
It ended up at a Safety Kleen branch in Germany. The contract was strictly on a service to service basis, but technically it was theft of our machine.
Yup, but realistically you’re never going to sue them.
Any “clampdown on benefit fraud” will last about as long as the first handful of out-of-context Guardian sob-stories of people “kicked out of their homes” or “denied their benefits”.
Must be time for a rehash of the army of loft laggers and of course the annual new year resolution that the civil service will go on a diet with government efficiency savings, finished off with the all time time #1, better tax enforcement. Will mean 100 million new jobs, £100bn saved, £100bn raised....
In all seriousness, a proper push on insulation rather than with the current restrictions on it would make a big difference, particularly with the aim of having heat pumps everywhere if possible.
I wouldn’t trust the people the Government would involve to do it, to correctly do it. As Taz says spray loft insulation has become a grade A disaster because the Government allowed cowboys to do it on the cheap
The Government could subsidise British sheepswool insulation - thus helping beleagured British farmers.
The only reason that British upland sheep farmers can survive is the massive subsidies that already exist. I'm not sure how you could justify even more cash for a sector that doesn't have national security considerations.
I see sheep are obviously public enemy number one with the ecoloon brigade.
I'm just not sure why sheep farmers are more deserving of massive state subsidies in a way that other businesses are not.
The average LFA sheep farm makes losses of £47k per year, and is subsidised by the government by £51k. It's obviously not a feasible enterprise and they don't provide food security in the way that other farms do. Redirect that cash to general cropping and reduce our imports of veg.
Agriculture around the world, is subsidised.
If we stop subsidising, there will be, fairly shortly, no agriculture.
Unless we fire up the Corn Laws - and stop cheap, subsidised imports
Oh I agree - the subsidies we make to cereals and, general cropping etc are sensible for a doomsday autarky scenario. We should probably increase them, using the cash that we currently spend on sheep farms.
Only around 15% of Scotland is non LFA land, of this most of it is on the east coast and a lot is already arable. You couldn't turn many units on the west of Scotland into specialist arable, it's far too wet, and the climate is poorer. Same reason why a lot of the grain going into Islay malts is produced off the island!
The problems which have governed arable farming in yield, quality and crop establishment this year are nothing to do with subsidy, or lack of, they are dictated by mother nature, which is something most other business in the UK do not have to contend with on the same scale.
The government knows if you were to rip subsidy fully away from the industry, food security would soon become a big issue in the country. It's easier to keep the sub, which is now almost all paid for land management and environmental schemes rather than livestock production, instead of asking consumers to pay more. Plenty of other businesses not related to national security get subsidised, and have done through covid and since
Sheep numbers in Scotland peaked around the early 90s, when there were approx 4m ewes, now there are 2.4m. Across the UK, they've fallen to around 13.5/14m from over 20m. I'd argue Wales still has too many ewes, I'd expect numbers in England and Wales to keep falling in the coming years.
There has been little change in the amount of sub paid over the last 10 years, in real terms a lot of farms in Scotland will be looking at a 35-40% decrease in subsidy since 2015
Meanwhile the price of lamb soars.
Beef is now cheaper, often. Venison is the cheap option….
Any “clampdown on benefit fraud” will last about as long as the first handful of out-of-context Guardian sob-stories of people “kicked out of their homes” or “denied their benefits”.
Must be time for a rehash of the army of loft laggers and of course the annual new year resolution that the civil service will go on a diet with government efficiency savings, finished off with the all time time #1, better tax enforcement. Will mean 100 million new jobs, £100bn saved, £100bn raised....
In all seriousness, a proper push on insulation rather than with the current restrictions on it would make a big difference, particularly with the aim of having heat pumps everywhere if possible.
I wouldn’t trust the people the Government would involve to do it, to correctly do it. As Taz says spray loft insulation has become a grade A disaster because the Government allowed cowboys to do it on the cheap
The Government could subsidise British sheepswool insulation - thus helping beleagured British farmers.
The only reason that British upland sheep farmers can survive is the massive subsidies that already exist. I'm not sure how you could justify even more cash for a sector that doesn't have national security considerations.
I see sheep are obviously public enemy number one with the ecoloon brigade.
I'm just not sure why sheep farmers are more deserving of massive state subsidies in a way that other businesses are not.
The average LFA sheep farm makes losses of £47k per year, and is subsidised by the government by £51k. It's obviously not a feasible enterprise and they don't provide food security in the way that other farms do. Redirect that cash to general cropping and reduce our imports of veg.
Agriculture around the world, is subsidised.
If we stop subsidising, there will be, fairly shortly, no agriculture.
Unless we fire up the Corn Laws - and stop cheap, subsidised imports
Oh I agree - the subsidies we make to cereals and, general cropping etc are sensible for a doomsday autarky scenario. We should probably increase them, using the cash that we currently spend on sheep farms.
Only around 15% of Scotland is non LFA land, of this most of it is on the east coast and a lot is already arable. You couldn't turn many units on the west of Scotland into specialist arable, it's far too wet, and the climate is poorer. Same reason why a lot of the grain going into Islay malts is produced off the island!
The problems which have governed arable farming in yield, quality and crop establishment this year are nothing to do with subsidy, or lack of, they are dictated by mother nature, which is something most other business in the UK do not have to contend with on the same scale.
The government knows if you were to rip subsidy fully away from the industry, food security would soon become a big issue in the country. It's easier to keep the sub, which is now almost all paid for land management and environmental schemes rather than livestock production, instead of asking consumers to pay more. Plenty of other businesses not related to national security get subsidised, and have done through covid and since
Sheep numbers in Scotland peaked around the early 90s, when there were approx 4m ewes, now there are 2.4m. Across the UK, they've fallen to around 13.5/14m from over 20m. I'd argue Wales still has too many ewes, I'd expect numbers in England and Wales to keep falling in the coming years.
There has been little change in the amount of sub paid over the last 10 years, in real terms a lot of farms in Scotland will be looking at a 35-40% decrease in subsidy since 2015
Meanwhile the price of lamb soars.
Beef is now cheaper, often. Venison is the cheap option….
Meat has went up a fair bit in the last year ... but nothing like the price rise I've seen in chocolate
The demand for poorer cuts of beef means some of the quality cuts are being minced to provide for mince, lasagne etc. I don't mind venison but it's not something I have often, there would be no shortage of supply if more deer were farmed domestically, overrun in a lot of the country!
I am still reading the COVID-19 Inquiry second report...
6.42. Mr Johnson, Mr Sunak and the Treasury also failed to consult or inform other UK government decision-makers, including Mr Hancock and senior advisers in the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Covid-19 Taskforce, about the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.112 These decision-makers, along with the devolved administrations, were deprived of the opportunity to raise any concerns or to influence the scheme.
6.43. Mr Johnson initially told the Inquiry that the Eat Out to Help Out scheme was “properly discussed, including with Chris [Whitty] and Patrick [Vallance]”.113 However, he subsequently confirmed that no scientific advisers were present at his meetings with Mr Sunak at which the scheme was discussed.114 The Treasury, Mr Sunak and Mr Johnson failed to seek scientific advice in relation to the potential epidemiological risks of the scheme, despite being advised by Professor Whitty about the risk of indoor hospitality settings.115 Professor Whitty explained:
“I do not think Treasury officials would have needed to consult me to know what I would have said however … I highlighted the risks of hospitality venues from very early in the pandemic multiple times.“116
And the lessons for any future pandemic are what exactly? Don't let Boris run the show? He's out already.
On the one hand, it is important to record what happened during the pandemic, although surely the Civil Service will have minuted all these meetings anyway. On the other, we've spent three years and a hundred megaquid on grandstanding lawyers pursuing what are basically gossip stories with nothing on how to prepare for, and then combat, the next pandemic. No wonder we can't get a motorway built.
The lawyers have delivered the report that Boris commissioned.
There are, however, recommendations in the report as well. (Some are implicit: like, consult with the Department of Health before doing these things, and don't pretend you have when you haven't.) I'm just in the middle of the bit describing what happened rather than in the recommendations bit.
The recommendations formally start in chapter 9, with this headline-grabbing proposal:
Recommendation 1: Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland
The Department of Health (Northern Ireland) should reconstitute the role of the Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland as an independent advisory role. The Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland should not have managerial responsibilities within the Department of Health (Northern Ireland).
Any “clampdown on benefit fraud” will last about as long as the first handful of out-of-context Guardian sob-stories of people “kicked out of their homes” or “denied their benefits”.
Must be time for a rehash of the army of loft laggers and of course the annual new year resolution that the civil service will go on a diet with government efficiency savings, finished off with the all time time #1, better tax enforcement. Will mean 100 million new jobs, £100bn saved, £100bn raised....
In all seriousness, a proper push on insulation rather than with the current restrictions on it would make a big difference, particularly with the aim of having heat pumps everywhere if possible.
I wouldn’t trust the people the Government would involve to do it, to correctly do it. As Taz says spray loft insulation has become a grade A disaster because the Government allowed cowboys to do it on the cheap
The Government could subsidise British sheepswool insulation - thus helping beleagured British farmers.
The only reason that British upland sheep farmers can survive is the massive subsidies that already exist. I'm not sure how you could justify even more cash for a sector that doesn't have national security considerations.
I see sheep are obviously public enemy number one with the ecoloon brigade.
I'm just not sure why sheep farmers are more deserving of massive state subsidies in a way that other businesses are not.
The average LFA sheep farm makes losses of £47k per year, and is subsidised by the government by £51k. It's obviously not a feasible enterprise and they don't provide food security in the way that other farms do. Redirect that cash to general cropping and reduce our imports of veg.
Agriculture around the world, is subsidised.
If we stop subsidising, there will be, fairly shortly, no agriculture.
Unless we fire up the Corn Laws - and stop cheap, subsidised imports
Oh I agree - the subsidies we make to cereals and, general cropping etc are sensible for a doomsday autarky scenario. We should probably increase them, using the cash that we currently spend on sheep farms.
Only around 15% of Scotland is non LFA land, of this most of it is on the east coast and a lot is already arable. You couldn't turn many units on the west of Scotland into specialist arable, it's far too wet, and the climate is poorer. Same reason why a lot of the grain going into Islay malts is produced off the island!
The problems which have governed arable farming in yield, quality and crop establishment this year are nothing to do with subsidy, or lack of, they are dictated by mother nature, which is something most other business in the UK do not have to contend with on the same scale.
The government knows if you were to rip subsidy fully away from the industry, food security would soon become a big issue in the country. It's easier to keep the sub, which is now almost all paid for land management and environmental schemes rather than livestock production, instead of asking consumers to pay more. Plenty of other businesses not related to national security get subsidised, and have done through covid and since
Sheep numbers in Scotland peaked around the early 90s, when there were approx 4m ewes, now there are 2.4m. Across the UK, they've fallen to around 13.5/14m from over 20m. I'd argue Wales still has too many ewes, I'd expect numbers in England and Wales to keep falling in the coming years.
There has been little change in the amount of sub paid over the last 10 years, in real terms a lot of farms in Scotland will be looking at a 35-40% decrease in subsidy since 2015
.... but that still doesn't justify the subsidy for sheep farms. What are we trying to achieve with it? It makes up a tiny proportion of our calories consumed. A large proportion is exported.
I think it's just one of those things that we would never put in place for the first time today, but the political cost of removing it is too high.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
My memory of that is a school trip to see the Queen.... It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
My memories of the seventies..... Hmmmm. My children were doing reasonably well at school; eldest son got the apprenticeship he wanted at the end of the decade, daughter met the man..... well, a youth then ...... she went on to marry and younger son failed the 11+...... only two boys per primary school 'allowed' to pass to the neighbouring authority's two Grammar Schools, and on the day of the exam he had a cold! I didn't mind too much but it rankled with him for years! Early in the decade the firm I was with was doing quite well, but later I managed to make a few bad decisions which cost us dear.
Most grammar schools have entry at 16 too
Our area had, to my mind anyway, and indeed still has, an excellent VIth Form College.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Zb1uiIcbu7g
The people who in my experience most often compare Farage & RefUK to Nazis are presenters on GB News as in "They are calling us Nazis. Are we Nazis?" (90% of the time "they" are not calling the Nazis", but it is a possibly effective deflection), and certain left wing activists of the SWP and similar variety.
Has this generation of Conservatives forgotten that rhetoric needs to be based on a smidgeon of reality, otherwise there is no anchor point?
The most toxic legacy of the Industrial Revolution may have been the warfare between the Bosses and the Workers.
A key point in this was an absolute lack of interest in the point of view of the other side. Or, indeed, of much outside a very narrow viewpoint. Complete Reichenbach Falls - two sides so intent on the other that they barely notice falling together to their deaths.
The management had largely given up on modernisation - fighting strikes and trying to hold wages down was the game. That, and begging for subsidy from Government.
The unions, in that time, were preoccupied with wages, conditions *and* demarcation and preventing productivity improvement
WUT!! I hear? Productivity Bad?
Well, they believed that productivity meant people losing their jobs. The competitiveness of the firm was irrelevant - The Bosses could afford it. And British goods would always sell, at any price.
The realisation that productivity creates more jobs in the wider economy hadn’t sunk in.
In addition, in the nationalised industries, the government had long got into the habit of binging some subsidy at them. To get to the next election. An attempt at modernisation would just provoke rounds of strikes - politically expensive.
When the Japanese car makers started in the U.K., they managed to build cars well and to a good *cost*. The workforce was often the same (and managers) - lots of ex-British Leyland. But the culture was completely different.
I recall the old style union barons declaring that arbitrated no-strike deals were a betrayal of the workers. There was even a proposal on the ultra-left that they should be banned.
As I said, they just manage the impossible rather better than do we,
Some interesting cross-overs happening or about to happen.
Greens have overtaken LDs
Conservatives about to overtake Labour?
Before next General, Greens to overtake Tories, Labour and Reform, as Reform are found out and Greens are not??
Greens are 16/1 for most seats on Betfair.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/what-americans-should-understand-about-the-military-disobeying-illegal-orders-two-oaths?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=The+Bulwark&utm_campaign=publer
..There is not one military oath. There are two. And the differences between them explain exactly who is responsible for refusing illegal orders, why the system was designed that way, and what it means for this moment.
...The Constitution and Congress deliberately created two different oaths—one for enlisted personnel, and one for officers. That structure is not bureaucratic trivia; it is grounded on the bedrock American civil–military relations. Ignoring it leads to the misleading assumption that everyone in uniform bears equal responsibility when confronted with an unlawful command.
They don’t. And that distinction matters.
Enlisted members swear to support and defend the Constitution, and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” And the UCMJ makes crystal clear that the service member’s obligation is to obey “lawful” orders, and that no enlisted member is permitted to carry out an unlawful order. But the enlisted oath is also intentionally anchored in obedience of the chain of command. The accountability lies one level up.
Which brings us to the officer oath—shorter in words, heavier in weight. Officers swear to “support and defend” the Constitution; to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it; and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of their office. They also affirm that they “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” What they do not swear to do is equally important: Officers make no promise to obey the president and the officers above them.
That omission is not an oversight. Officers give orders, evaluate legality, and act as the constitutional circuit breakers the Founders intended. They are expected—by law, by professional ethic, and by centuries of tradition—to exercise independent judgment when presented with a questionable directive. Officers are duty-bound to refuse an unlawful order. It is not optional. It is not situational. It is their job.
When the members of Congress in their video urge what seems to be the entire military not to follow illegal orders, they may unintentionally blur the very lines that keep the system functioning. Enlisted personnel obey lawful orders; officers ensure the orders that reach them are lawful. The real constitutional failsafe is not a general broadcast to every rank. It is the officer corps, obligated by oath to the Constitution alone...
Being in the office, even if you aren't achieving much, is seen as better the getting stuff done and then going- either to an agreeable bistro or home.
(See the 4 day week hooh hah. The idea that there's a limit to how much quality thinking we can do in a week, and it's closer to four office days than five, just doesn't compute as well in the UK. Probably that protestant work ethic.)
I’ve ran similar numbers for British nuclear and found something similar: the concrete, copper cable, steel, and so on add up to ~£100m per GW of capacity, while Hinckley point C is costing ~£10B/GW.
Transformative regulatory and industry changes that can make nuclear the cheapest and most reliable energy source in history are possible, and this is the first report I’ve read that understands this potential while also offering good first step recommendations for the industry at large.
https://x.com/BernoulliDefect/status/1992910271715643449
Including myself.
We have definitely arrived in an age where party loyalty is fickle, at best.
Hmmmm
Starmer just doesn't have that about him. He should have - he's pretty much a self made man - rose to the top of the CPS, then made it to PM. He loves football and no-one would I think imagine thats an act. He has a wife and kids, but he has kept that side of life very far away from the public (which is a fair choice, but may not help his image). And he has tough times. Blair had it easy. Come into office after 18 years of the Tories with a booming economy, so room to increase spending. And Blair was relatable too.
I fear for Starmer's longevity. I suspect he's in big trouble in May.
They are in a position to say, since people who retire from the US Navy often go to work in the civilian nuclear industry - good pay and there is high demand for their skills.
Civilian nuclear regulation is both useless for safety (even detrimental) and insanely expensive, is their typical comment.
This is because a regulation doesn’t necessarily make things better. It can actually make things worse.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
The point of the "Triple Lock" was that it was supposed to facilitate a period of catch-up in the state pension. When did it switch from that concept - a temporary catch-up phase - to becoming some kind of sacred commitment for all eternity?
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/1992907366371828219
We do have confidential searches for DBS for employers considering potential or actual employees, ditto organizations considering volunteers (for instance art galleries should check that no kiddy-fiddlers are applying to help with childrens' activities.
https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record
The obvious thought is that as employers we would like to know our MPs' crim records or at least what a DBS shows.
The equally obvious rejoinder from our MPs is that how dare we? They don't see themselves as our employees that have to follow normal workplace standards, legislation (see scandals passim). The standard for sacking MPs tout court is a much higher (or one should say lower) one than in your average office or workshop.
Which leaves the final thought - they aren't MPs after Parliament is dissolved, and until they are elected ... so why not DBS?
Cameron was all about meeting people, non-stop.
Anyway we have Reform on the horizon. If they need a bail out they can simply apply to the Kremlin.
I heard Chris Peckham say yesterday that China now produces half the world's renewables and we are actually buying energy off them. "It's completely crazy!" He shouted! I had no idea whether it was or not but it sounded like it was.
Why weren't we producing our own?
Why isn't it going to be the first mention in Rachel's budget?.......
Why isn't Chris Peckham our PM?
Why isn't TSE writing headlines like "From Keir to Eternity"
And it is absolutely right that a huge stigma is attached to IMF programs in developed countries (unless maybe they face some huge, exceptional and unpredictable shock, which we clearly don't) - firstly because it shows they've forgotten basic economics, and secondly because the IMF doesn't have infinite resources, and the money required should be targeted on countries, such as those in Africa or South Asia without deep capital markets, that actually need it, not lazy and spendthrift political classes and interest groups in countries that should be able to manage their economies competently.
£1m spent elsewhere in river conservation would have had a more beneficial effect.
£10m would be massively more beneficial.
So £600m plus wasted on essentially nothing.
Green lobbying against development simply doesn't recognise the concept of value for money in conservation.
Yet the politicians who consider them most aligned with the free market concept, like Redwood or Rees Mogg, got apoplectic over the issue and felt the need for the state to strongly intervene in what is acceptable rather than let it be decided by efficiency.
I thought he was already dead.
Has anyone else ever got Harold Wilson and Pompidou into the lyrics of their song?
Wonderful World, Beautiful People indeed.
A list of their various budgetary speculations. If this bears any relation to reality, the mistakes will be the same as previously. Too time, too much tactics and too little strategy, deckchairs on the Titanic. The backing down part way seems especially mistaken.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/budget/what-will-be-budget-2025-labour-income-tax-raid-raise-predictions/
The latest poor little me story. Council Tax doubled on a £500k second house in the Cotswolds. 4 bed. Couple just about at retirement age. The line is "all we put into the local community", but I think that perhaps a family living there year round would put more back in.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/injected-16k-cotswolds-second-home-council-tax-doubled/
(Yes, I know. It's an ecumenical matter.)
He had the lowest share of the vote of any PM since Ramsay McDonalds minority govt in 1923. so he simply wasn't popular to start with. And he has never had any significant aligned media backers which is a first in my lifetime.
There's no mechanism for making him leave, he has sufficient loyalist Labour MPs to overcome even a large revolt, he's genuinely too pig-headed to leave of his own accord, and he's perfectly capable of barricading himself in Downing Street or buggering off to Foreign Climes instead of facing down his critics.
Matthew Parris (I know, I know) said during the Gordon Brown sulk that whenever anybody says "we can't go on like this", it usually turns out that you can, for several months if not years. Given there are now only 13.5 months until Dec312026, 11/10 may be value.
6.42. Mr Johnson, Mr Sunak and the Treasury also failed to consult or inform other UK government decision-makers, including Mr Hancock and senior advisers in the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Covid-19 Taskforce, about the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.112 These decision-makers, along with the devolved administrations, were deprived of the opportunity to raise any concerns or to influence the scheme.
6.43. Mr Johnson initially told the Inquiry that the Eat Out to Help Out scheme was “properly discussed, including with Chris [Whitty] and Patrick [Vallance]”.113 However, he subsequently confirmed that no scientific advisers were present at his meetings with Mr Sunak at which the scheme was discussed.114 The Treasury, Mr Sunak and Mr Johnson failed to seek scientific advice in relation to the potential epidemiological risks of the scheme, despite being advised by Professor Whitty about the risk of indoor hospitality settings.115 Professor Whitty explained:
“I do not think Treasury officials would have needed to consult me to know what I would have said however … I highlighted the risks of hospitality venues from very early in the pandemic multiple times.“116
I really like Trojan records and also the first pioneers of Reggae in the U.K. like Desmond Decker, Ken Boothe and Harry J and the Allstars
https://news.sky.com/story/jimmy-cliff-jamaican-reggae-singer-and-actor-dies-13474843
And I think, yeah it would be sad if I hadn't thought they were dead already.
Used to sell them Plastic moulded parts over 30 years ago !!
Moulded in HIPS.
“He changes strategic direction every day (Monday we were all about fear of virus returning as per Europe, March etc – today we were in ‘let it rip’ mode cos the UK is pathetic, needs a cold shower etc). He cannot lead and we cannot support him in leading with this approach. The team captain cannot change the call on big plays every day.“122
Yes, one part of government was trying to mandate illegal employment. In the nuclear sector.
The point being that those inventing these rules have no idea what they are doing. Because they need to do something to justify their existence. And they are often generalists who have no domain knowledge.
See the emails etc. from civil servants on how much better BritVolt was to deal with than other tech companies. None of that “arrogant knowing what will work stuff” - that was literally in one email.
And ideally we should be focusing on improving pension credit, perhaps expanding who gets it as well as increasing it, rather than giving an ever increasing share of tax spending (which is what the triple lock, by design, ensures) to the richest cohort in the country.
ETA at one point Sugar more or less had a monopoly on injection moulding for hifi. Probably nearer 60 years ago than 30.
6.93. Dr Anders Tegnell, Swedish state epidemiologist, was also in favour of further action by the UK government. He told the meeting that “the myth that Sweden did nothing during the pandemic is false“.227 Sweden is frequently cited as a country that did not implement a lockdown but that successfully brought the virus under control. It is true that, rather than imposing mandatory measures, the government issued guidelines recommending social distancing, the avoidance of non-essential travel and working from home where possible. Businesses and primary schools largely remained open. Gatherings of more than 50 people were, however, banned and secondary schools and universities switched to remote learning.228
6.94. In a study that Imperial College London undertook comparing the first wave of the pandemic in the UK, Denmark and Sweden, it found that Sweden achieved almost the same level of reduction in contact rates (as reflected in workplace mobility changes and the proportion of people avoiding public spaces) as many other European countries. These included its neighbour, Denmark, which instituted a suite of mandatory policies. However, Swedish control measures took longer to reduce R below 1 than did the measures adopted by both the UK and Denmark, and achieved a lower overall reduction in R.
The average LFA sheep farm makes losses of £47k per year, and is subsidised by the government by £51k. It's obviously not a feasible enterprise and they don't provide food security in the way that other farms do. Redirect that cash to general cropping and reduce our imports of veg.
I am amazed you missed how appalling your Government was, certainly from 2019. Did you also miss today's news that Boris Johnson was taking a five day impromptu holiday whilst Italians were dropping like flies of COVID in late February 2020. But then he got all the big calls right!
* Caveat emptor this Government are a grave disappointment, but not a patch on the venality and corruption demonstrated half a decade ago by the Conservatives.
They’ve had a lot to say about the public sector, who face no competition or market, deciding with little evidence to pay their staff 100% of their pay for 80% of the hours.
If we stop subsidising, there will be, fairly shortly, no agriculture.
Unless we fire up the Corn Laws - and stop cheap, subsidised imports
Who did you work for? Diaplastics, Ninkaplast.
Dealt with a guy called Peter Rees IIRC. Company was PMC.
Our mouldings were small, 75-125 T presses and tended to be the display strips and other smaller stuff like the fold down flap.
On the one hand, it is important to record what happened during the pandemic, although surely the Civil Service will have minuted all these meetings anyway. On the other, we've spent three years and a hundred megaquid on grandstanding lawyers pursuing what are basically gossip stories with nothing on how to prepare for, and then combat, the next pandemic. No wonder we can't get a motorway built.
New Zealand abolished its agriculture tariffs and subsidies, and the sector thrived.
Their approach reads as quite similar to that of Japan, which was notably more successful balancing economic costs and preventing deaths (which might have something to do with their more or less universal adoption of masking, and greater adoption of social distancing... though there are other hypotheses).
We had a twice weekly cycle with Ninka. When my guy turned up at 8.00 one Monday morning the place was locked down. At 18.00 on Friday after the employees had left about a dozen trunkers turned up and the plant was stripped out and moved to Eastern Europe. My spraygun cleaning machine was in Poland.
As it would not be on their asset register and, presumably, the contract was to rent it at that site a bit dodgy them moving it like that. Probably worried something would get out.
There are, however, recommendations in the report as well. (Some are implicit: like, consult with the Department of Health before doing these things, and don't pretend you have when you haven't.) I'm just in the middle of the bit describing what happened rather than in the recommendations bit.
The problems which have governed arable farming in yield, quality and crop establishment this year are nothing to do with subsidy, or lack of, they are dictated by mother nature, which is something most other business in the UK do not have to contend with on the same scale.
The government knows if you were to rip subsidy fully away from the industry, food security would soon become a big issue in the country. It's easier to keep the sub, which is now almost all paid for land management and environmental schemes rather than livestock production, instead of asking consumers to pay more. Plenty of other businesses not related to national security get subsidised, and have done through covid and since
Sheep numbers in Scotland peaked around the early 90s, when there were approx 4m ewes, now there are 2.4m. Across the UK, they've fallen to around 13.5/14m from over 20m. I'd argue Wales still has too many ewes, I'd expect numbers in England and Wales to keep falling in the coming years.
There has been little change in the amount of sub paid over the last 10 years, in real terms a lot of farms in Scotland will be looking at a 35-40% decrease in subsidy since 2015
Furthermore, I think many people massively underestimate the chances of Labour and Starmer coming back to win the next election on a much reduced majority (possibly with other party support) and Starmer being able to leave at a time of his choosing after 2028/9.
Were I to bet on this, that’s what I would bet on. The reason I haven’t is that I think we’re at least 12 months out from the polls even turning and a chance to extract a bit of profit. I might go in at Starmer’s nadir next May though.
For full disclosure I did also assume the normal political gravity associated with a majority of seventy squillion would help the Sunak Gvt recover in 2023 and manage a slim majority in 2024. So what do I know?
Beef is now cheaper, often. Venison is the cheap option….
The demand for poorer cuts of beef means some of the quality cuts are being minced to provide for mince, lasagne etc. I don't mind venison but it's not something I have often, there would be no shortage of supply if more deer were farmed domestically, overrun in a lot of the country!
Recommendation 1: Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland
The Department of Health (Northern Ireland) should reconstitute the role of the Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland as an independent advisory role. The Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland should not have managerial responsibilities within the Department of Health (Northern Ireland).
I think it's just one of those things that we would never put in place for the first time today, but the political cost of removing it is too high.