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.
No, eventually I just got a stock transfer note from an SK depot in Eastern Germany.
It was a shame because everyone at Nine Mile Point lost their jobs. One of our number said, "every cloud has a silver lining at least B** R*** will have lost his job". I found out later that B** R*** was the German owners 's man on the ground and he was paid handsomely for coordinating stripping out the factory.
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've been buying venison out of UK supermarkets from a brand that is supposedly 80% wild but to meet demand, some of it is farmed in New Zealand of all places.
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.
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.
You are perhaps forgetting the inherent flexibility of that situation - the sheep meat could be retained in a crisis over imported food and form a larger proportion of UK diet, without being so dependent on imported feed as kine and swine.
Plus Mrs C and I do our best to eat and wear the little dears.
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.
Even worse: "senior backbencher".
"senior backbencher" - what’s wrong with that?
When it’s used, everyone knows that it means “some nutter that even the party whips don’t 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….
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've been buying venison out of UK supermarkets from a brand that is supposedly 80% wild but to meet demand, some of it is farmed in New Zealand of all places.
It’s easy to substitute venison in recipes for lamb and beef.
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.
You are perhaps forgetting the inherent flexibility of that situation - the sheep meat could be retained in a crisis over imported food and form a larger proportion of UK diet, without being so dependent on imported feed as kine and swine.
Plus Mrs C and I do our best to eat and wear the little dears.
If guess if we close the border with England...
I concede that point. Without access to Lincolnshire we are in a spot of bother.
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?
When it was never really sold as such, with a well defined end-point and projections on when we might get there - i.e. this is the target state pension (relative to earnings, say, or some other measure) and under some assumptions we get there in about 5/10 years or whatever. That would have been really helpful.
Some long term agreement on levels would also be helpful for people planning personal pensions. How much I should put in now does partly depend on what my state pension will be. Given uncertainty on that, I may be over-contributing now, money I could perhaps spend more productively in the economy and on things with national benenfit (scaled up if others did similar) such as switching to an EV, heat pump and finishing my home insulation programme (which at present I'm doing slowiy, room-by-room with decorating, and will take at least another 5 years or so to complete).
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).
I jest a little... Volume 1 is this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened, but Volume 2, https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/reports/modules-2-2a-2b-2c-core-decision-making-and-political-governance-volume-ii/ , steps back and is much more about learning lessons. This second report is explicitly on "Core decision-making and political governance" and Vol. 2 gets into the nitty-gritty with practical recommendations for how to improve core decision-making and political governance. This isn't "the government shouldn't have locked down" or "the government should have locked down" stuff. It's much more detailed around how to you make sure decision-making can be well informed etc., with lots of detailed recommendations, like...
9.150. Educating decision-makers on the use of core scientific concepts would enhance both political and public understanding of this discipline. In advance of any future pandemic, the UK government and devolved administrations should develop a focused training module describing core scientific and modelling concepts that could be delivered to relevant decision-makers and officials (including those responsible for communications) at the outset of an emergency.
This is not headline-grabbing, but it seems sensible and straightforward to do.
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.
I'd agree it needs reform but it serves more purpose than meets the eye. The returns in sheep farming won't be as bad this year, breeding stock were an exceptional trade. Scotgov did try and bring in an overall sub cap, cant remember exactly what it was, one way of curcumventing it was to split a business into multiple. I think as UK stock numbers reduce, it will have less importance
In many remote rural areas sub is more for social and community reasons. Like a lot of the Lewis crofts wouldn't bother keeping sheep if you removed it, some of those guys will have several jobs. It's keeping a tradition alive, same as investment in the Gaelic language. Places like Argyll and Perthshire have seen a lot of stock go, a lot of sheep now in the Borders once larger units - they won't be unprofitable businesses.
Re the export/import, some cuts are exported and others imported, also still very seasonal when a glut can appear on market, particularly when a load comes in from NZ. You don't get that with beef or chicken
I don't get too heat up about it, it sounds a lot but its chicken feed compared with some public projects nowadays.
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.
Even worse: "senior backbencher".
"senior backbencher" - what’s wrong with that?
When it’s used, everyone knows that it means “some nutter that even the party whips don’t know”
I mentally switch it for 'senile backbencher' and find that works well in most instances
9.164. The Inquiry agrees that the phrase ‘following the science’ blurred the boundary between scientific advice and policy-making. It should not have become an often used mantra to justify policy decisions. By using it in this way, the accountability of ministers for their decisions was obscured by the implication that scientists had dictated the path they should follow. This might have contributed to the disgraceful abuse directed towards scientists by some members of the public during the course of the pandemic. Although some of the devolved administrations used alternatives and, on occasion, articulated how scientific advice had been used more accurately, these still failed to convey the debate and competing opinions that are inherent in scientific disciplines. The UK government and devolved administrations should aim to provide a fuller explanation of the factors that influence their decision-making in future emergencies.
9.176. The scientific advice provided by SAGE was only one of the constituent parts that fed into decision-making. Although SAGE minutes and papers were ultimately published, other advice provided to ministers (including economic advice) was not. This could have given rise to the mistaken impression that scientific advice was the sole factor informing the UK government’s decisions. This was not always the case. For example, as outlined in Chapter 5: Exit from lockdown, in Volume I, although the availability of accurate economic modelling was limited, economic considerations were a significant factor in the UK government’s decision-making about the easing of restrictions in England in the summer of 2020 and the reduction in social distancing guidance. However, the lack of transparency of the economic advice contributed to an impression of imbalance.
9.164. The Inquiry agrees that the phrase ‘following the science’ blurred the boundary between scientific advice and policy-making. It should not have become an often used mantra to justify policy decisions. By using it in this way, the accountability of ministers for their decisions was obscured by the implication that scientists had dictated the path they should follow. This might have contributed to the disgraceful abuse directed towards scientists by some members of the public during the course of the pandemic. Although some of the devolved administrations used alternatives and, on occasion, articulated how scientific advice had been used more accurately, these still failed to convey the debate and competing opinions that are inherent in scientific disciplines. The UK government and devolved administrations should aim to provide a fuller explanation of the factors that influence their decision-making in future emergencies.
There were distinct camps on the science though. Some of that "science" probably deserved abuse.
9.164. The Inquiry agrees that the phrase ‘following the science’ blurred the boundary between scientific advice and policy-making. It should not have become an often used mantra to justify policy decisions. By using it in this way, the accountability of ministers for their decisions was obscured by the implication that scientists had dictated the path they should follow. This might have contributed to the disgraceful abuse directed towards scientists by some members of the public during the course of the pandemic. Although some of the devolved administrations used alternatives and, on occasion, articulated how scientific advice had been used more accurately, these still failed to convey the debate and competing opinions that are inherent in scientific disciplines. The UK government and devolved administrations should aim to provide a fuller explanation of the factors that influence their decision-making in future emergencies.
Yes, and the politicians had the responsibility for everything else not just the response to the medical emergency. Keeping the lights on, saving jobs, educating children. If you just wanted to stop the virus, the harshest of lockdowns would work in the end. As it did in the UK first time round, despite our lockdown not being as restrictive as some countries. "Guided by our science advisors but taking a broader view" would be a better statement.
9.164. The Inquiry agrees that the phrase ‘following the science’ blurred the boundary between scientific advice and policy-making. It should not have become an often used mantra to justify policy decisions. By using it in this way, the accountability of ministers for their decisions was obscured by the implication that scientists had dictated the path they should follow. This might have contributed to the disgraceful abuse directed towards scientists by some members of the public during the course of the pandemic. Although some of the devolved administrations used alternatives and, on occasion, articulated how scientific advice had been used more accurately, these still failed to convey the debate and competing opinions that are inherent in scientific disciplines. The UK government and devolved administrations should aim to provide a fuller explanation of the factors that influence their decision-making in future emergencies.
There were distinct camps on the science though. Some of that "science" probably deserved abuse.
I don't think anyone deserved abuse for doing their best, providing advice unpaid. That is a horrendous comment.
9.164. The Inquiry agrees that the phrase ‘following the science’ blurred the boundary between scientific advice and policy-making. It should not have become an often used mantra to justify policy decisions. By using it in this way, the accountability of ministers for their decisions was obscured by the implication that scientists had dictated the path they should follow. This might have contributed to the disgraceful abuse directed towards scientists by some members of the public during the course of the pandemic. Although some of the devolved administrations used alternatives and, on occasion, articulated how scientific advice had been used more accurately, these still failed to convey the debate and competing opinions that are inherent in scientific disciplines. The UK government and devolved administrations should aim to provide a fuller explanation of the factors that influence their decision-making in future emergencies.
Yes, and the politicians had the responsibility for everything else not just the response to the medical emergency. Keeping the lights on, saving jobs, educating children. If you just wanted to stop the virus, the harshest of lockdowns would work in the end. As it did in the UK first time round, despite our lockdown not being as restrictive as some countries. "Guided by our science advisors but taking a broader view" would be a better statement.
The report offers, "A phrase such as ‘informed by the science’ would be a better way of describing the appropriate balance between scientific advice and political decisions, although it still does not encapsulate the competing factors that need to be balanced."
The Advice * Option 1: the models produced by X predicted a R of 2 and based on that a rise to 180,000 deaths in the next six months (produced by Scientific Group A on 20/05/2020) * Option 2: the models produced by Y predicted a rise to 150,000 deaths in the next six months (produced by Scientific Group B on 19/05/2020) * Option 3: an extrapolation of the existing data produced by Z predicted a rise to 80,000 deaths in the next month (produced by Statistical Group C on 21/05/2020)
The Decision Committee X discussed the options and the decision to launch a lockdown was made by the Committee on 28/05/2020, chaired by The RtHon Chris Goodfellowe, Minister of Health.
9.164. The Inquiry agrees that the phrase ‘following the science’ blurred the boundary between scientific advice and policy-making. It should not have become an often used mantra to justify policy decisions. By using it in this way, the accountability of ministers for their decisions was obscured by the implication that scientists had dictated the path they should follow. This might have contributed to the disgraceful abuse directed towards scientists by some members of the public during the course of the pandemic. Although some of the devolved administrations used alternatives and, on occasion, articulated how scientific advice had been used more accurately, these still failed to convey the debate and competing opinions that are inherent in scientific disciplines. The UK government and devolved administrations should aim to provide a fuller explanation of the factors that influence their decision-making in future emergencies.
There were distinct camps on the science though. Some of that "science" probably deserved abuse.
I don't think anyone deserved abuse for doing their best, providing advice unpaid. That is a horrendous comment.
Totally agree.
Although I think the idiots on iSAGE did more harm than good.
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.
You are perhaps forgetting the inherent flexibility of that situation - the sheep meat could be retained in a crisis over imported food and form a larger proportion of UK diet, without being so dependent on imported feed as kine and swine.
Plus Mrs C and I do our best to eat and wear the little dears.
If guess if we close the border with England...
I concede that point. Without access to Lincolnshire we are in a spot of bother.
Thinking more of imports into the UK actually, not just NZ lamb. It's good animal protein without needing (much) intensive grazing.
Edit: so ticking a box in the strategic sense. Lot more to go, though ...
The Advice * Option 1: the models produced by X predicted a R of 2 and based on that a rise to 180,000 deaths in the next six months (produced by Scientific Group A on 20/05/2020) * Option 2: the models produced by Y predicted a rise to 150,000 deaths in the next six months (produced by Scientific Group B on 19/05/2020) * Option 3: an extrapolation of the existing data produced by Z predicted a rise to 80,000 deaths in the next month (produced by Statistical Group C on 21/05/2020)
The Decision Committee X discussed the options and the decision to launch a lockdown was made by the Committee on 28/05/2020, chaired by The RtHon Chris Goodfellowe, Minister of Health.
9.109 seq. addresses that. The report discusses a balance between presenting clear advice and representing a range of views, and has suggestions for ensuring a broad range of views is better heard. 9.117 notes:
9.117. On balance, the consensus mechanism was effective during the Covid-19 response. It considerably strengthened and broadened the scientific advice that was produced, while avoiding a situation in which ministers were faced with the competing and complex opinions of various experts. As Professor Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England from October 2017 to March 2022, pointed out:
“If the CMO and the GCSA [Government Chief Scientific Adviser] were to give non-scientists (such as the Prime Minister) a range of different opinions, I think it is inevitable that they would simply ask them which one they ought to listen to; the result being that the Prime Minister would be making decisions on the basis of one person’s view rather than a broad range that have been discussed and tested before being assimilated into an agreed central opinion.”211
9.164. The Inquiry agrees that the phrase ‘following the science’ blurred the boundary between scientific advice and policy-making. It should not have become an often used mantra to justify policy decisions. By using it in this way, the accountability of ministers for their decisions was obscured by the implication that scientists had dictated the path they should follow. This might have contributed to the disgraceful abuse directed towards scientists by some members of the public during the course of the pandemic. Although some of the devolved administrations used alternatives and, on occasion, articulated how scientific advice had been used more accurately, these still failed to convey the debate and competing opinions that are inherent in scientific disciplines. The UK government and devolved administrations should aim to provide a fuller explanation of the factors that influence their decision-making in future emergencies.
There were distinct camps on the science though. Some of that "science" probably deserved abuse.
I don't think anyone deserved abuse for doing their best, providing advice unpaid. That is a horrendous comment.
Totally agree.
Although I think the idiots on iSAGE did more harm than good.
Independent SAGE hasn't got much attention in the report up to ch. 9, but 9.170 discusses their formation.
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
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've been buying venison out of UK supermarkets from a brand that is supposedly 80% wild but to meet demand, some of it is farmed in New Zealand of all places.
It’s easy to substitute venison in recipes for lamb and beef.
The Advice * Option 1: the models produced by X predicted a R of 2 and based on that a rise to 180,000 deaths in the next six months (produced by Scientific Group A on 20/05/2020) * Option 2: the models produced by Y predicted a rise to 150,000 deaths in the next six months (produced by Scientific Group B on 19/05/2020) * Option 3: an extrapolation of the existing data produced by Z predicted a rise to 80,000 deaths in the next month (produced by Statistical Group C on 21/05/2020)
The Decision Committee X discussed the options and the decision to launch a lockdown was made by the Committee on 28/05/2020, chaired by The RtHon Chris Goodfellowe, Minister of Health.
9.109 seq. addresses that. The report discusses a balance between presenting clear advice and representing a range of views, and has suggestions for ensuring a broad range of views is better heard. 9.117 notes:
9.117. On balance, the consensus mechanism was effective during the Covid-19 response. It considerably strengthened and broadened the scientific advice that was produced, while avoiding a situation in which ministers were faced with the competing and complex opinions of various experts. As Professor Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England from October 2017 to March 2022, pointed out:
“If the CMO and the GCSA [Government Chief Scientific Adviser] were to give non-scientists (such as the Prime Minister) a range of different opinions, I think it is inevitable that they would simply ask them which one they ought to listen to; the result being that the Prime Minister would be making decisions on the basis of one person’s view rather than a broad range that have been discussed and tested before being assimilated into an agreed central opinion.”211
Oh, I agree, but I still think scientists advise, politicians decide. If they want a scientist to recommend an option then fine, but it's still the politician's responsibility. They can't throw their hands up and go "Oh, I was just following the advice" and if they do they shouldn't be in the job.
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?
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
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.
No, eventually I just got a stock transfer note from an SK depot in Eastern Germany.
It was a shame because everyone at Nine Mile Point lost their jobs. One of our number said, "every cloud has a silver lining at least B** R*** will have lost his job". I found out later that B** R*** was the German owners 's man on the ground and he was paid handsomely for coordinating stripping out the factory.
I remember when PMC went, I felt sorry for the good people there but no empathy at all for the family members who managed it so poorly. When it went bust the management tried to buy it out. But were hampered by key custom terms (MG Rover for one) demanding cost downs. Fucking idiots.
The loss of our toolmaker base I never felt much sadness for as so many toolmakers, certainly in injection mouldings, were tits. But the loss of many trade moulders was quite sad. I remember Showpla up Cannock way used to do mouldings for TV’s.
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
The Advice * Option 1: the models produced by X predicted a R of 2 and based on that a rise to 180,000 deaths in the next six months (produced by Scientific Group A on 20/05/2020) * Option 2: the models produced by Y predicted a rise to 150,000 deaths in the next six months (produced by Scientific Group B on 19/05/2020) * Option 3: an extrapolation of the existing data produced by Z predicted a rise to 80,000 deaths in the next month (produced by Statistical Group C on 21/05/2020)
The Decision Committee X discussed the options and the decision to launch a lockdown was made by the Committee on 28/05/2020, chaired by The RtHon Chris Goodfellowe, Minister of Health.
9.109 seq. addresses that. The report discusses a balance between presenting clear advice and representing a range of views, and has suggestions for ensuring a broad range of views is better heard. 9.117 notes:
9.117. On balance, the consensus mechanism was effective during the Covid-19 response. It considerably strengthened and broadened the scientific advice that was produced, while avoiding a situation in which ministers were faced with the competing and complex opinions of various experts. As Professor Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England from October 2017 to March 2022, pointed out:
“If the CMO and the GCSA [Government Chief Scientific Adviser] were to give non-scientists (such as the Prime Minister) a range of different opinions, I think it is inevitable that they would simply ask them which one they ought to listen to; the result being that the Prime Minister would be making decisions on the basis of one person’s view rather than a broad range that have been discussed and tested before being assimilated into an agreed central opinion.”211
Oh, I agree, but I still think scientists advise, politicians decide. If they want a scientist to recommend an option then fine, but it's still the politician's responsibility. They can't throw their hands up and go "Oh, I was just following the advice" and if they do they shouldn't be in the job.
The report repeatedly comes back to "scientists advise, politicians decide" and accepts that as the appropriate approach. Reading Volume 1, the separation between scientific advice and politicial decisionmaking is very clear, in particular with Johnson repeatedly ignoring scientific advice in favour of a more optimistic stance (which the report criticises when it comes to the timings of lockdowns 1 and 2, but sees as right by luck in the response to Omicron). In Volume 2, the report discusses how the government's framing of "following the science" had a tendency to mislead, to minimise their own agency, which contributed to a tendency for some commentators and in the public to wrongly believe that scientists were making all the decisions. Scientists made no decisions.
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've been buying venison out of UK supermarkets from a brand that is supposedly 80% wild but to meet demand, some of it is farmed in New Zealand of all places.
It’s easy to substitute venison in recipes for lamb and beef.
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
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've been buying venison out of UK supermarkets from a brand that is supposedly 80% wild but to meet demand, some of it is farmed in New Zealand of all places.
It’s easy to substitute venison in recipes for lamb and beef.
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've been buying venison out of UK supermarkets from a brand that is supposedly 80% wild but to meet demand, some of it is farmed in New Zealand of all places.
It’s easy to substitute venison in recipes for lamb and beef.
Got to say it takes a lot of annoyance to investment this sort of money - it's completely new track and completely new trains - so a multi decade project costing billions.
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
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've been buying venison out of UK supermarkets from a brand that is supposedly 80% wild but to meet demand, some of it is farmed in New Zealand of all places.
It’s easy to substitute venison in recipes for lamb and beef.
Did version rogan Josh the other day.
Is it vegan???
You wouldn't would you?
Whenever I eat Octopus I always feel a pang of guilt as they are intelligent creatures.
But they taste so bloody good. Especially roasted on a hot plate, with nice charcoaling of the skin in Places, with a nice glass of wine on a nice evening in Greece.
If they were really smart they’d genetically develop to be toxic. Like the Octopus that has a blue ring.
Got to say it takes a lot of annoyance to investment this sort of money - it's completely new track and completely new trains - so a multi decade project costing billions.
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
Got to say it takes a lot of annoyance to investment this sort of money - it's completely new track and completely new trains - so a multi decade project costing billions.
New trains or just new bogies/wheelsets ?
I think it’s more long term planning - alongside a combination of point scoring and making the most of an opportunity
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
Got to say it takes a lot of annoyance to investment this sort of money - it's completely new track and completely new trains - so a multi decade project costing billions.
New trains or just new bogies/wheelsets ?
I think it’s more long term planning - alongside a combination of point scoring and making the most of an opportunity
I think it is more about self identification: Finnish trains will now identify differently.
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
Got to say it takes a lot of annoyance to investment this sort of money - it's completely new track and completely new trains - so a multi decade project costing billions.
New trains or just new bogies/wheelsets ?
I think it’s more long term planning - alongside a combination of point scoring and making the most of an opportunity
Probably. If the rolling stock needs replacing it will need replacing irrespective. If not they ‘may’ be able to accommodate it on new bogies or wheelsets.
If it’s new rolling stock maybe Shitachi in Aycliffe can bid for it ?
One week of Movember left, and I'm about to hit a GRAND in money raised for the charity. Which is mind blowing, and does compensate a little for having this bristly horror growing on my face. I'm still mentally up and down - and more down than up - so this has given me something positive to focus on.
Got to say it takes a lot of annoyance to investment this sort of money - it's completely new track and completely new trains - so a multi decade project costing billions.
New trains or just new bogies/wheelsets ?
I think it’s more long term planning - alongside a combination of point scoring and making the most of an opportunity
I think it is more about self identification: Finnish trains will now identify differently.
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.
Great post. Nice style. Reminded me of 'The Stranger' by Camus (just needed to lose the exclamation marks)
Comments
It was a shame because everyone at Nine Mile Point lost their jobs. One of our number said, "every cloud has a silver lining at least B** R*** will have lost his job". I found out later that B** R*** was the German owners 's man on the ground and he was paid handsomely for coordinating stripping out the factory.
Plus Mrs C and I do our best to eat and wear the little dears.
When it’s used, everyone knows that it means “some nutter that even the party whips don’t know”
Did version rogan Josh the other day.
I concede that point. Without access to Lincolnshire we are in a spot of bother.
Some long term agreement on levels would also be helpful for people planning personal pensions. How much I should put in now does partly depend on what my state pension will be. Given uncertainty on that, I may be over-contributing now, money I could perhaps spend more productively in the economy and on things with national benenfit (scaled up if others did similar) such as switching to an EV, heat pump and finishing my home insulation programme (which at present I'm doing slowiy, room-by-room with decorating, and will take at least another 5 years or so to complete).
9.150. Educating decision-makers on the use of core scientific concepts would enhance both political and public understanding of this discipline. In advance of any future pandemic, the UK government and devolved administrations should develop a focused training module describing core scientific and modelling concepts that could be delivered to relevant decision-makers and officials (including those responsible for communications) at the outset of an emergency.
This is not headline-grabbing, but it seems sensible and straightforward to do.
In many remote rural areas sub is more for social and community reasons. Like a lot of the Lewis crofts wouldn't bother keeping sheep if you removed it, some of those guys will have several jobs. It's keeping a tradition alive, same as investment in the Gaelic language. Places like Argyll and Perthshire have seen a lot of stock go, a lot of sheep now in the Borders once larger units - they won't be unprofitable businesses.
Re the export/import, some cuts are exported and others imported, also still very seasonal when a glut can appear on market, particularly when a load comes in from NZ. You don't get that with beef or chicken
I don't get too heat up about it, it sounds a lot but its chicken feed compared with some public projects nowadays.
The Advice
* Option 1: the models produced by X predicted a R of 2 and based on that a rise to 180,000 deaths in the next six months (produced by Scientific Group A on 20/05/2020)
* Option 2: the models produced by Y predicted a rise to 150,000 deaths in the next six months (produced by Scientific Group B on 19/05/2020)
* Option 3: an extrapolation of the existing data produced by Z predicted a rise to 80,000 deaths in the next month (produced by Statistical Group C on 21/05/2020)
The Decision
Committee X discussed the options and the decision to launch a lockdown was made by the Committee on 28/05/2020, chaired by The RtHon Chris Goodfellowe, Minister of Health.
Although I think the idiots on iSAGE did more harm than good.
Edit: so ticking a box in the strategic sense. Lot more to go, though ...
9.117. On balance, the consensus mechanism was effective during the Covid-19 response. It considerably strengthened and broadened the scientific advice that was produced, while avoiding a situation in which ministers were faced with the competing and complex opinions of various experts. As Professor Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England from October 2017 to March 2022, pointed out:
“If the CMO and the GCSA [Government Chief Scientific Adviser] were to give non-scientists (such as the Prime Minister) a range of different opinions, I think it is inevitable that they would simply ask them which one they ought to listen to; the result being that the Prime Minister would be making decisions on the basis of one person’s view rather than a broad range that have been discussed and tested before being assimilated into an agreed central opinion.”211
Anyway, if anyone wants to donate to Movember I'd be honoured - https://uk.movember.com/mospace/15417051
The loss of our toolmaker base I never felt much sadness for as so many toolmakers, certainly in injection mouldings, were tits. But the loss of many trade moulders was quite sad. I remember Showpla up Cannock way used to do mouldings for TV’s.
My Movember page is here:
https://movember.com/m/timothywoodman?mc=1
https://youtu.be/o39pZIt8k_M?si=l83fCZCJVK_hAylJ
https://www.trenvista.net/en/news/flash/finland-migration-standard-gauge/
Got to say it takes a lot of annoyance to investment this sort of money - it's completely new track and completely new trains - so a multi decade project costing billions.
@TSE gets membership by means of those shoes...
But they taste so bloody good. Especially roasted on a hot plate, with nice charcoaling of the skin in
Places, with a nice glass of wine on a nice evening in Greece.
If they were really smart they’d genetically develop to be toxic. Like the Octopus that has a blue ring.
- U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff..
https://x.com/rgoodlaw/status/1992949478538826196
Sorry analytical chemistry...
Israel/Hamas Ceasefire: +18%
Border Security: -10%
Immigration: -24%
Russia-Ukraine: -52%
Tariffs: -56%
Economy: -58%
Argentina Aid: -60%
Inflation: -62%
Epstein: -68%
Gov't Shutdown: -72%
- Marquette -
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1992710974642745781
Heckuva job, piggy.
You'll be put on a list.
If it’s new rolling stock maybe Shitachi in Aycliffe can bid for it ?