Public policy doesn’t just regulate behaviour. It helps shape social norms.
We saw it with smoking. We saw it with drink-driving. We saw it with seatbelts.
The objective isn’t merely to stop every under-16 accessing social media. The objective is to shift the default expectation away from “every child should have unrestricted access to algorithm-driven engagement platforms from the moment they’re handed a smartphone”.
If, in ten years’ time, parents feel less pressure to put their children on social media and children feel less pressure to be on it because “everyone else is”, then the policy may have succeeded even if some teenagers are still finding workarounds.
There are two main problems. The most important is that algorithm engagement platforms are a problem for adults, and banning access to children is a way to avoid doing anything about the harm experienced by adults (and consequently society).
The second is that implementing an age ban essentially requires everyone to verify their identity, which has huge implications for civil liberties, which we really don't want to give that sort of power to governments at a time of growing authoritarianism.
As well as the 3 parliamentary by-elections this week we have a host of local elections. First we have countermanded elections where one of the candidates in May died. These are Bradford(3 LD), Bury (1 Lab), Essex (1 LD), and Hillingdon (2 Con). Then there are normal by-elections where councillors have died, resigned, or have been elected to a higher office. So we have Conway ( 2 different wards Ref elected as Con), Wrexham ( 3 elected in different wards as PC), Swansea ( 1 Lab and 1 Ref elected as Con in different wards), Essex (Ref), Lewisham (Green), New Forest (Con), and Rochford (Ref), But wait till we get to next week!
What is the story with the 2 wards in Conway where Ref were elected as Con? Have the two of them decided to stand down after all that? Surely they can't both have died - that would be a remarkable coincidence?
As well as the 3 parliamentary by-elections this week we have a host of local elections. First we have countermanded elections where one of the candidates in May died. These are Bradford(3 LD), Bury (1 Lab), Essex (1 LD), and Hillingdon (2 Con). Then there are normal by-elections where councillors have died, resigned, or have been elected to a higher office. So we have Conway ( 2 different wards Ref elected as Con), Wrexham ( 3 elected in different wards as PC), Swansea ( 1 Lab and 1 Ref elected as Con in different wards), Essex (Ref), Lewisham (Green), New Forest (Con), and Rochford (Ref), But wait till we get to next week!
What is the story with the 2 wards in Conway where Ref were elected as Con? Have the two of them decided to stand down after all that? Surely they can't both have died - that would be a remarkable coincidence?
And SSH? And Tor? And the various obfuscation methods people use to mask internet traffic?
I take it young people can do this because it’s double Dutch to this old codger.
Most can't now. Depending on how the ban is enforced many will learn how relatively quickly. But that's not an argument agains a ban. We don’t abandon age restrictions on alcohol because some teenagers can get served, or speed limits because some drivers speed.
The kids will go on something worse than social media, like 4chan. The VPN ban idea is the response of a nervous wreck overreaching with the illusion of control. They need therapy, or drugs in the first instance.
We’re discussing a proposal to restrict access to social media for children, not mandatory chip implantation and a Ministry of Truth.
The harms of social media on minors are now well documented and widely accepted. Doing nothing is not a neutral position. It is a conscious choice to allow those harms to continue.
Instead of disappearing down the conspiracy rabbit hole, or smugly declaring that “da yoof” will bypass the controls with VPNs and disappear into the dark web, perhaps we could have a grown-up discussion about what might actually help.
No policy is ever 100% effective. We don’t abandon age restrictions on alcohol because some teenagers get served, or speed limits because some drivers speed.
The question isn’t whether a determined minority can circumvent the rules. It’s whether the lives of the much larger compliant majority are improved.
If you’ve got better ideas, let’s hear them. If not, “they’ll get around it anyway” isn’t much of a policy.
"This policy is unworkable and the response of a neurotic."
People who pay to give their children a perceived advantage that the vast majority of parents can't afford upset that they can no longer afford it either.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp92pr5pr48o
The Gestapo marched hundreds of thousands of innocent people to their deaths.
I've ended private schools' tax breaks to invest in state schools.
No responsible leader makes vile comparisons like this. Kemi Badenoch is not fit to be Prime Minister.
In light of the catastrophe she is overseeing on SEND I would gently suggest that Bridget Phillipson not accuse somebody else of being unfit for any particular role she may aspire to.
Incidentally, she also seems to have confused the Gestapo with the SS in that post.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
We've effectively tried that approach over the last two decades, and it didn't work.
Literally everything the MoD does is underfunded. The only solution to that is to cut entire programs or capabilities and concentrate on the absolutely essential.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Its previous owners were extremely efficient at extracting capital. And sold it to some real mugs who thought they could pull the same trick.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
We've effectively tried that approach over the last two decades, and it didn't work.
Literally everything the MoD does is underfunded. The only solution to that is to cut entire programs or capabilities and concentrate on the absolutely essential.
As we have the 6th highest military budget in the world, if everything is underfunded then there are really only a few possibilities:
1) our military is massively inefficient by being both spendthrift and on a shoestring.
2) everyone else is underfunded and incapable too.
If 2) we shouldn't worry too much. If 1) we should sort that out before chucking good money after bad.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
A lot of the waste comes from being too underfunded to do things properly. We hear of this time and time again, there’s not enough money right now to fund a project, so it gets pushed back and the delay raises the final bill.
The MoD needs enough of a cash infusion to start funding some large projects - GCAP, Dreadnought and the Type 26/31 builds - without having to cut corners, which will save money in the long term. In its current form the DIP does not do that, so the cycle of saving pennies at the cost of pounds will continue.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Muslims make up around 1.5% of the Texas electorate.
We need to be clear about what is happening in this photo.
Rick Scarborough, former Southern Baptist pastor, got on stage at the Texas Republican Convention and told state DELEGATE Mohamed Hussein to convert to Christianity or leave the country. He was so upset that he cried. It was then and only then that Rick felt guilty, so he sat down and pretended to pray for him.
Muslims make up around 1.5% of the Texas electorate.
We need to be clear about what is happening in this photo.
Rick Scarborough, former Southern Baptist pastor, got on stage at the Texas Republican Convention and told state DELEGATE Mohamed Hussein to convert to Christianity or leave the country. He was so upset that he cried. It was then and only then that Rick felt guilty, so he sat down and pretended to pray for him.
The Gestapo marched hundreds of thousands of innocent people to their deaths.
I've ended private schools' tax breaks to invest in state schools.
No responsible leader makes vile comparisons like this. Kemi Badenoch is not fit to be Prime Minister.
I find it hard to take a side here, without knowing: what was the Gestapo line on taxation of private education?
I think she's making a veiled intervention in the Labour leadership debate given that Lammy and Hermer have both recently made such comparisons.
Lammy and Hermer also said Bridget is like a Gestapo officer? She's having a tough time of it.
Being able to call somebody a Gestapo officer is, of course, paradoxically, a sign that they are not actually very like one.
As in the Middle East, if you want to criticise the government and live, be an Israeli. Otoh, Gestapo comparisons are frowned upon in that country so it's swings and roundabouts.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Lets compare the water quality in the Thames today to pre-privatisation to make a like-for-like comparison.
Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.
Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.
And SSH? And Tor? And the various obfuscation methods people use to mask internet traffic?
I take it young people can do this because it’s double Dutch to this old codger.
Most can't now. Depending on how the ban is enforced many will learn how relatively quickly. But that's not an argument agains a ban. We don’t abandon age restrictions on alcohol because some teenagers can get served, or speed limits because some drivers speed.
The kids will go on something worse than social media, like 4chan. The VPN ban idea is the response of a nervous wreck overreaching with the illusion of control. They need therapy, or drugs in the first instance.
We’re discussing a proposal to restrict access to social media for children, not mandatory chip implantation and a Ministry of Truth.
The harms of social media on minors are now well documented and widely accepted. Doing nothing is not a neutral position. It is a conscious choice to allow those harms to continue.
Instead of disappearing down the conspiracy rabbit hole, or smugly declaring that “da yoof” will bypass the controls with VPNs and disappear into the dark web, perhaps we could have a grown-up discussion about what might actually help.
No policy is ever 100% effective. We don’t abandon age restrictions on alcohol because some teenagers get served, or speed limits because some drivers speed.
The question isn’t whether a determined minority can circumvent the rules. It’s whether the lives of the much larger compliant majority are improved.
If you’ve got better ideas, let’s hear them. If not, “they’ll get around it anyway” isn’t much of a policy.
Again you have fallen into the trap of 'We must do something. This is something. We must do it'.
There is no requirement, when identifying a stupid policy that will not work, to come up with a better policy that will. A stupid policy is stupid all on its own. And this is a stupid policy.
If you are so concerned about this then you come up with a better policy. Don't just expect us to accept this because it is 'something', irrespective of how stupid it is.
That’s fair as a matter of logic.
“We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it” is indeed a poor argument.
But that’s not actually the argument being made.
The argument is:
1. Social media appears to be causing measurable harm to many children. 2. Doing nothing is a policy choice, not a neutral position. 3. Restricting access may reduce those harms. 4. Therefore the proposal should be judged on whether it is likely to reduce those harms, not on whether it is perfect.
You say it is a stupid policy that won’t work. Fine. Explain why.
“Some people will circumvent it” isn’t enough, because people circumvent every restriction ever devised.
The relevant question is whether it changes behaviour for the majority.
If your position is that the policy won’t materially reduce social media use among children, that’s a serious argument. If your position is merely that it won’t eliminate it entirely, then that’s setting a standard that almost no public policy could ever meet.
My position is undoubtedly the former. Social media is such an intrisic part of children's lives that they will do pretty much anything to get around any ban.
I have a son who is now 18 so is past the age he would be effected. But we live ina fairly remote place and he went to school 9 miles away. The chances of him having friends he could spend time with face to face were very limited. But he had a very fuill and active social life with friends online - some from school, some from much further away. There are those who argue that online friendship is no repalacement for face to face but that ignores the fact that like minded groups of friends can still form close bonds without having to actually meet physically. This is the way much of our youth now ineracts. It is as normal for them as meeting your mates at the park was 30 years ago. And in fact they get far more time with their friends than we ever did when we were limited by curfews, by distance and by weather.
Taking that away is going to cause a huge amount of upset and wreck childrens social lives. How many parents are going to be happy having their kids off roaming the streets to meet with friends? The idea that all the kids are suddenly going to start going to youth clubs (which mostly no longer exist) or play football together in the park where they will be looked upon as a nuisance and driven away by adults, is a complete joke. I think the issue of social isolation has been massively understated.
As a result kids will very much go looking for ways around the ban. It has already happened in Australia where anecdotaly most children are still on social media simply using false ages or VPNs. So very clearly for me, not only will it not reduce social medaia usage but we don't want it to do so. This really is Cnut holding back the tide.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
We've effectively tried that approach over the last two decades, and it didn't work.
Literally everything the MoD does is underfunded. The only solution to that is to cut entire programs or capabilities and concentrate on the absolutely essential.
As we have the 6th highest military budget in the world, if everything is underfunded then there are really only a few possibilities:
1) our military is massively inefficient by being both spendthrift and on a shoestring.
2) everyone else is underfunded and incapable too.
If 2) we shouldn't worry too much. If 1) we should sort that out before chucking good money after bad.
Yes, but bear in mind that ever since Osborne, our military budget is bigger on paper after the Treasury added new line items to hide reductions in spending on things that go bang, principally the nuclear deterrent, pensions, and most recently intelligence services. ETA similarly the overseas aid budget is now spent on British 4-star hotels.
And SSH? And Tor? And the various obfuscation methods people use to mask internet traffic?
I take it young people can do this because it’s double Dutch to this old codger.
Most can't now. Depending on how the ban is enforced many will learn how relatively quickly. But that's not an argument agains a ban. We don’t abandon age restrictions on alcohol because some teenagers can get served, or speed limits because some drivers speed.
The kids will go on something worse than social media, like 4chan. The VPN ban idea is the response of a nervous wreck overreaching with the illusion of control. They need therapy, or drugs in the first instance.
We’re discussing a proposal to restrict access to social media for children, not mandatory chip implantation and a Ministry of Truth.
The harms of social media on minors are now well documented and widely accepted. Doing nothing is not a neutral position. It is a conscious choice to allow those harms to continue.
Instead of disappearing down the conspiracy rabbit hole, or smugly declaring that “da yoof” will bypass the controls with VPNs and disappear into the dark web, perhaps we could have a grown-up discussion about what might actually help.
No policy is ever 100% effective. We don’t abandon age restrictions on alcohol because some teenagers get served, or speed limits because some drivers speed.
The question isn’t whether a determined minority can circumvent the rules. It’s whether the lives of the much larger compliant majority are improved.
If you’ve got better ideas, let’s hear them. If not, “they’ll get around it anyway” isn’t much of a policy.
Again you have fallen into the trap of 'We must do something. This is something. We must do it'.
There is no requirement, when identifying a stupid policy that will not work, to come up with a better policy that will. A stupid policy is stupid all on its own. And this is a stupid policy.
If you are so concerned about this then you come up with a better policy. Don't just expect us to accept this because it is 'something', irrespective of how stupid it is.
That’s fair as a matter of logic.
“We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it” is indeed a poor argument.
But that’s not actually the argument being made.
The argument is:
1. Social media appears to be causing measurable harm to many children. 2. Doing nothing is a policy choice, not a neutral position. 3. Restricting access may reduce those harms. 4. Therefore the proposal should be judged on whether it is likely to reduce those harms, not on whether it is perfect.
You say it is a stupid policy that won’t work. Fine. Explain why.
“Some people will circumvent it” isn’t enough, because people circumvent every restriction ever devised.
The relevant question is whether it changes behaviour for the majority.
If your position is that the policy won’t materially reduce social media use among children, that’s a serious argument. If your position is merely that it won’t eliminate it entirely, then that’s setting a standard that almost no public policy could ever meet.
My position is undoubtedly the former. Social media is such an intrisic part of children's lives that they will do pretty much anything to get around any ban.
I have a son who is now 18 so is past the age he would be effected. But we live ina fairly remote place and he went to school 9 miles away. The chances of him having friends he could spend time with face to face were very limited. But he had a very fuill and active social life with friends online - some from school, some from much further away. There are those who argue that online friendship is no repalacement for face to face but that ignores the fact that like minded groups of friends can still form close bonds without having to actually meet physically. This is the way much of our youth now ineracts. It is as normal for them as meeting your mates at the park was 30 years ago. And in fact they get far more time with their friends than we ever did when we were limited by curfews, by distance and by weather.
Taking that away is going to cause a huge amount of upset and wreck childrens social lives. How many parents are going to be happy having their kids off roaming the streets to meet with friends? The idea that all the kids are suddenly going to start going to youth clubs (which mostly no longer exist) or play football together in the park where they will be looked upon as a nuisance and driven away by adults, is a complete joke. I think the issue of social isolation has been massively understated.
As a result kids will very much go looking for ways around the ban. It has already happened in Australia where anecdotaly most children are still on social media simply using false ages or VPNs. So very clearly for me, not only will it not reduce social medaia usage but we don't want it to do so. This really is Cnut holding back the tide.
Absolutely.
Plus if we drive behaviour underground it makes matters worse not better.
I would far rather my kids be on social media openly and honestly, on terms and conditions I agree with them (including usage limits) using official apps, than them masking their usage and the only visibility I can see is they've been on a web browser.
Prohibition does not work and driving behaviour underground only makes it more dangerous.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Or against inept regulators
Both, but profit maximisation doesn't sit well with the provision of clean water and sewage treatment. There's no argument that the private owners didn't extract £bns from Thames Water by borrowing against the assets and cash flow that could have been spent on investment or not borrowed.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Lets compare the water quality in the Thames today to pre-privatisation to make a like-for-like comparison.
Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.
Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.
I think water quality would have improved even if it had been publicly owned the entire time.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
We've effectively tried that approach over the last two decades, and it didn't work.
Literally everything the MoD does is underfunded. The only solution to that is to cut entire programs or capabilities and concentrate on the absolutely essential.
As we have the 6th highest military budget in the world, if everything is underfunded then there are really only a few possibilities:
1) our military is massively inefficient by being both spendthrift and on a shoestring.
2) everyone else is underfunded and incapable too.
If 2) we shouldn't worry too much. If 1) we should sort that out before chucking good money after bad.
Yes, but bear in mind that ever since Osborne, our military budget is bigger on paper after the Treasury added new line items to hide reductions in spending on things that go bang, principally the nuclear deterrent, pensions, and most recently intelligence services. ETA similarly the overseas aid budget is now spent on British 4-star hotels.
Yep, the defence budget is stuffed with things not related to the ability of the armed forces to break things and kill people. Add the cost of the nuclear deterrent and the money available to fund the conventional military isn't generous.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Lets compare the water quality in the Thames today to pre-privatisation to make a like-for-like comparison.
Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.
Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.
I think water quality would have improved even if it had been publicly owned the entire time.
The main factor in UK water quality improvement was EU directives
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Or against inept regulators
Both, but profit maximisation doesn't sit well with the provision of clean water and sewage treatment. There's no argument that the private owners didn't extract £bns from Thames Water by borrowing against the assets and cash flow that could have been spent on investment or not borrowed.
It should also be noted two years ago - long after this highly illegal behaviour had come to light - Macquarie acquired 100% of the National Grid, where it is clearly planning to do exactly the same thing.
Previously, it had owned 80%, which was bad enough.
Why is it we as a nation are not learning from very basic mistakes?
(Unless it was a highly Machiavellian plot to keep large sums of Macquarie's assets in the country so they could be seized to make up for previous frauds, but candidly that seems unlikely.)
Muslims make up around 1.5% of the Texas electorate.
We need to be clear about what is happening in this photo.
Rick Scarborough, former Southern Baptist pastor, got on stage at the Texas Republican Convention and told state DELEGATE Mohamed Hussein to convert to Christianity or leave the country. He was so upset that he cried. It was then and only then that Rick felt guilty, so he sat down and pretended to pray for him.
I asked yesterday how the YouTube ban would work when you don't need to log in or have any type of account to watch a YouTube video. Nobody responded - presumably as the Govt did nothing to make the position clear.
After a fair bit of googling, it appears the ban is actually going to be on under 16s having a YouTube account.
So under 16s will still be able to watch a YouTube video. But under 16s won't be able to subscribe, comment, like etc.
Is this in line with everyone's understanding?
I've no idea what the government has against YouTube. They ought to pay for YouTube Premium for every schoolchild, given the amount of educational content on there. Making it impossible for under-16s to comment achieves nothing useful I can think of. I hope YouTube will be quietly dropped from the verboten list.
Otherwise, on general cybersecurity grounds, government advice used to be to shield one's identity. Now it wants us – grandparents and grandchildren alike – to upload passports, headshots and inside leg measurements to any number of sketchy, foreign-owned sites.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Lets compare the water quality in the Thames today to pre-privatisation to make a like-for-like comparison.
Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.
Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.
I think water quality would have improved even if it had been publicly owned the entire time.
What evidence underpins that assumption.
The fact is that laws requiring the nationalised water firms not to pollute already existed pre-privatisation, but they were routinely ignored.
If the nationalised water firms polluted there was not much that could be done. Theoretically fines could be issued, but since it was nationalised, the fine was meaningless and nobody paid much mind.
There was a rapid and immediate improvement in accountability and enforcement post-privatisation as all of a sudden fines for pollution had teeth. There became a very real cost to shareholders that if you pollute and get a fine then that comes out of your profitability. That only happened thanks to privatisation.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Lets compare the water quality in the Thames today to pre-privatisation to make a like-for-like comparison.
Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.
Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.
I think water quality would have improved even if it had been publicly owned the entire time.
What evidence underpins that assumption.
The fact is that laws requiring the nationalised water firms not to pollute already existed pre-privatisation, but they were routinely ignored.
If the nationalised water firms polluted there was not much that could be done. Theoretically fines could be issued, but since it was nationalised, the fine was meaningless and nobody paid much mind.
There was a rapid and immediate improvement in accountability and enforcement post-privatisation as all of a sudden fines for pollution had teeth. There became a very real cost to shareholders that if you pollute and get a fine then that comes out of your profitability. That only happened thanks to privatisation.
Are there any nationalised water companies in the UK we could look at?
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Lets compare the water quality in the Thames today to pre-privatisation to make a like-for-like comparison.
Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.
Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.
I think water quality would have improved even if it had been publicly owned the entire time.
What evidence underpins that assumption.
The fact is that laws requiring the nationalised water firms not to pollute already existed pre-privatisation, but they were routinely ignored.
If the nationalised water firms polluted there was not much that could be done. Theoretically fines could be issued, but since it was nationalised, the fine was meaningless and nobody paid much mind.
There was a rapid and immediate improvement in accountability and enforcement post-privatisation as all of a sudden fines for pollution had teeth. There became a very real cost to shareholders that if you pollute and get a fine then that comes out of your profitability. That only happened thanks to privatisation.
Are there any nationalised water companies in the UK we could look at?
The prior history of nationalised industry is about as poor as it can get. There are glimmers of hope - Air Traffic Control seems to have done well before any hints of privitisation.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
We've effectively tried that approach over the last two decades, and it didn't work.
Literally everything the MoD does is underfunded. The only solution to that is to cut entire programs or capabilities and concentrate on the absolutely essential.
As we have the 6th highest military budget in the world, if everything is underfunded then there are really only a few possibilities:
1) our military is massively inefficient by being both spendthrift and on a shoestring.
2) everyone else is underfunded and incapable too.
If 2) we shouldn't worry too much. If 1) we should sort that out before chucking good money after bad.
Yes, but bear in mind that ever since Osborne, our military budget is bigger on paper after the Treasury added new line items to hide reductions in spending on things that go bang, principally the nuclear deterrent, pensions, and most recently intelligence services. ETA similarly the overseas aid budget is now spent on British 4-star hotels.
Yep, the defence budget is stuffed with things not related to the ability of the armed forces to break things and kill people. Add the cost of the nuclear deterrent and the money available to fund the conventional military isn't generous.
Isn't it true of most countries that military budgets are largely wasted on bloated prestige arms and cosy if not corrupt relationships between military and suppliers? It is a great British tradition too to send ships to sea with rotten biscuits and rancid meat.
The exceptions are mostly those countries actually fighting for their existence like Ukraine or Israel.
I think it highly likely that any increased funds will be spaffed up the wall exactly the same way. Same old, same old.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Lets compare the water quality in the Thames today to pre-privatisation to make a like-for-like comparison.
Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.
Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.
I think water quality would have improved even if it had been publicly owned the entire time.
What evidence underpins that assumption.
The fact is that laws requiring the nationalised water firms not to pollute already existed pre-privatisation, but they were routinely ignored.
If the nationalised water firms polluted there was not much that could be done. Theoretically fines could be issued, but since it was nationalised, the fine was meaningless and nobody paid much mind.
There was a rapid and immediate improvement in accountability and enforcement post-privatisation as all of a sudden fines for pollution had teeth. There became a very real cost to shareholders that if you pollute and get a fine then that comes out of your profitability. That only happened thanks to privatisation.
Are there any nationalised water companies in the UK we could look at?
The prior history of nationalised industry is about as poor as it can get. There are glimmers of hope - Air Traffic Control seems to have done well before any hints of privitisation.
So why did no other country in Europe follow our example of privatisation?
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Most likely we could sink the offending ship. And it is offending.
But that'd use up the RN's operational missile. Another operational missile won't likely be commissioned until 2028. There are plenty of sailors standing about on the carrier decks of the tethered to the dock RN that question this sort of trhing.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
I could afford to go to several very nice private schools, why should my parents have had a tax break? They weren't doing it for the benefit of society. Should I get a tax break for paying to see my GP too?
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
I could afford to go to several very nice private schools, why should my parents have had a tax break? They weren't doing it for the benefit of society. Should I get a tax break for paying to see my GP too?
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
I suggest you read my post the other day.
What you call a tax break for me will actually lead to a tax penalty for you.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
With regard to George going to Eton, why would you send your children to boarding school if you didn't have to. I appreciate for some eg military it is unavoidable, but you have them for such a short period of time why would you offload them? When our children left to go to University it was a real wrench and I still miss them not being here even though it has freed up our lives.
Most likely we could sink the offending ship. And it is offending.
But that'd use up the RN's operational missile. Another operational missile won't likely be commissioned until 2028. There are plenty of sailors standing about on the carrier decks of the tethered to the dock RN that question this sort of trhing.
The next step, should the Government want to take it, would be to impound or impede a Russian warship in the Channel. Or find a Russian yacht in the Baltic that's "drifted" in bad weather towards one of our destroyers, and fire a warning shot over that instead.
I'm not too worried. Ukraine have already sunk their fleet in the Black Sea with our drones or money, so it's not like they're coming out on top.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Lets compare the water quality in the Thames today to pre-privatisation to make a like-for-like comparison.
Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.
Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.
I think water quality would have improved even if it had been publicly owned the entire time.
What evidence underpins that assumption.
The fact is that laws requiring the nationalised water firms not to pollute already existed pre-privatisation, but they were routinely ignored.
If the nationalised water firms polluted there was not much that could be done. Theoretically fines could be issued, but since it was nationalised, the fine was meaningless and nobody paid much mind.
There was a rapid and immediate improvement in accountability and enforcement post-privatisation as all of a sudden fines for pollution had teeth. There became a very real cost to shareholders that if you pollute and get a fine then that comes out of your profitability. That only happened thanks to privatisation.
Are there any nationalised water companies in the UK we could look at?
The prior history of nationalised industry is about as poor as it can get. There are glimmers of hope - Air Traffic Control seems to have done well before any hints of privitisation.
So why did no other country in Europe follow our example of privatisation?
I don't know, and I don't know the circumstances of quite why we followed the route we did. You mistake me for Omniscient.
Nonetheless the idea that the public sector should run anything is clearly compromised forever.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
We've effectively tried that approach over the last two decades, and it didn't work.
Literally everything the MoD does is underfunded. The only solution to that is to cut entire programs or capabilities and concentrate on the absolutely essential.
As we have the 6th highest military budget in the world, if everything is underfunded then there are really only a few possibilities:
1) our military is massively inefficient by being both spendthrift and on a shoestring.
2) everyone else is underfunded and incapable too.
If 2) we shouldn't worry too much. If 1) we should sort that out before chucking good money after bad.
Yes, but bear in mind that ever since Osborne, our military budget is bigger on paper after the Treasury added new line items to hide reductions in spending on things that go bang, principally the nuclear deterrent, pensions, and most recently intelligence services. ETA similarly the overseas aid budget is now spent on British 4-star hotels.
Yep, the defence budget is stuffed with things not related to the ability of the armed forces to break things and kill people. Add the cost of the nuclear deterrent and the money available to fund the conventional military isn't generous.
Isn't it true of most countries that military budgets are largely wasted on bloated prestige arms and cosy if not corrupt relationships between military and suppliers? It is a great British tradition too to send ships to sea with rotten biscuits and rancid meat.
The exceptions are mostly those countries actually fighting for their existence like Ukraine or Israel.
I think it highly likely that any increased funds will be spaffed up the wall exactly the same way. Same old, same old.
After all,,the biggest threat to the security of us and our allies isn't a large number of Russian soldiers seeking to occupy physical space. It's Russian agents in St Petersburg basements seeking to occupy online and mental spaces.
And nobody has really worked out what to do about that problem.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
That’s a very sneering view. I’d argue that they offer excellent education, small group teaching, allowing pupils to greater attainment than they would likely get at the local state school AND social polish and access to privilege.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
I could afford to go to several very nice private schools, why should my parents have had a tax break? They weren't doing it for the benefit of society. Should I get a tax break for paying to see my GP too?
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
I suggest you read my post the other day.
What you call a tax break for me will actually lead to a tax penalty for you.
Why do my parents deserve a tax break though? Why is it out there and not extended to other things?
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Lets compare the water quality in the Thames today to pre-privatisation to make a like-for-like comparison.
Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.
Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.
I think water quality would have improved even if it had been publicly owned the entire time.
What evidence underpins that assumption.
The fact is that laws requiring the nationalised water firms not to pollute already existed pre-privatisation, but they were routinely ignored.
If the nationalised water firms polluted there was not much that could be done. Theoretically fines could be issued, but since it was nationalised, the fine was meaningless and nobody paid much mind.
There was a rapid and immediate improvement in accountability and enforcement post-privatisation as all of a sudden fines for pollution had teeth. There became a very real cost to shareholders that if you pollute and get a fine then that comes out of your profitability. That only happened thanks to privatisation.
Are there any nationalised water companies in the UK we could look at?
The prior history of nationalised industry is about as poor as it can get. There are glimmers of hope - Air Traffic Control seems to have done well before any hints of privitisation.
So why did no other country in Europe follow our example of privatisation?
I don't know, and I don't know the circumstances of quite why we followed the route we did. You mistake me for Omniscient.
Nonetheless the idea that the public sector should run anything is clearly compromised forever.
Some things are best run by the state and some things aren’t. Like nationalising BT would be stupid and indeed mostly every country did copy us there (although if we’d kept 10% like the French have - actually they kept a lot more) that might have been beneficial.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
Utter rubbish.
Sorry but the one thing a private school will give you from the age of 13 onwards is a set of contacts (friends from school and parents of those friends) that could well set you up for life..
With regard to George going to Eton, why would you send your children to boarding school if you didn't have to. I appreciate for some eg military it is unavoidable, but you have them for such a short period of time why would you offload them? When our children left to go to University it was a real wrench and I still miss them not being here even though it has freed up our lives.
Prince William went to Eton so presumably liked it enough to sign George up (or put him down or whatever it is you do for Eton).
With regard to George going to Eton, why would you send your children to boarding school if you didn't have to. I appreciate for some eg military it is unavoidable, but you have them for such a short period of time why would you offload them? When our children left to go to University it was a real wrench and I still miss them not being here even though it has freed up our lives.
Prince William went to Eton so presumably liked it enough to sign George up (or put him down or whatever it is you do for Eton).
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
Utter rubbish.
Sorry but the one thing a private school will give you from the age of 13 onwards is a set of contacts (friends from school and parents of those friends) that could well set you up for life..
Yup. It’s definitely set me up for life and there’s no point denying it.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency
Lets compare the water quality in the Thames today to pre-privatisation to make a like-for-like comparison.
Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.
Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.
I think water quality would have improved even if it had been publicly owned the entire time.
What evidence underpins that assumption.
The fact is that laws requiring the nationalised water firms not to pollute already existed pre-privatisation, but they were routinely ignored.
If the nationalised water firms polluted there was not much that could be done. Theoretically fines could be issued, but since it was nationalised, the fine was meaningless and nobody paid much mind.
There was a rapid and immediate improvement in accountability and enforcement post-privatisation as all of a sudden fines for pollution had teeth. There became a very real cost to shareholders that if you pollute and get a fine then that comes out of your profitability. That only happened thanks to privatisation.
Are there any nationalised water companies in the UK we could look at?
The prior history of nationalised industry is about as poor as it can get. There are glimmers of hope - Air Traffic Control seems to have done well before any hints of privitisation.
So why did no other country in Europe follow our example of privatisation?
I don't know, and I don't know the circumstances of quite why we followed the route we did. You mistake me for Omniscient.
Nonetheless the idea that the public sector should run anything is clearly compromised forever.
Some things are best run by the state and some things aren’t. Like nationalising BT would be stupid and indeed mostly every country did copy us there (although if we’d kept 10% like the French have - actually they kept a lot more) that might have been beneficial.
With regard to George going to Eton, why would you send your children to boarding school if you didn't have to. I appreciate for some eg military it is unavoidable, but you have them for such a short period of time why would you offload them? When our children left to go to University it was a real wrench and I still miss them not being here even though it has freed up our lives.
Prince William went to Eton so presumably liked it enough to sign George up (or put him down or whatever it is you do for Eton).
Why can’t he go to a state school? Serious question.
With regard to George going to Eton, why would you send your children to boarding school if you didn't have to. I appreciate for some eg military it is unavoidable, but you have them for such a short period of time why would you offload them? When our children left to go to University it was a real wrench and I still miss them not being here even though it has freed up our lives.
Prince William went to Eton so presumably liked it enough to sign George up (or put him down or whatever it is you do for Eton).
Why can’t he go to a state school? Serious question.
Reform clearly have the most committed supporters under Farage and the highest favourables. They also are disliked by many and Burnham will be pleased he expands the Labour lead over Farage and Reform on a forced choice, though largely by squeezing the Green and LD votes as Tory voters become less keen on him
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
I could afford to go to several very nice private schools, why should my parents have had a tax break? They weren't doing it for the benefit of society. Should I get a tax break for paying to see my GP too?
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
I suggest you read my post the other day.
What you call a tax break for me will actually lead to a tax penalty for you.
Why do my parents deserve a tax break though? Why is it out there and not extended to other things?
It's not a "tax break". These are educational charities that don't make a profit, and usually operate very close to break even as they try and make their fees competitive- which they must charge because that's the only way they get funding. That will sadly exclude many who can't afford them, which they try to mitigate with bursaries and scholarships, and it's the only way they can operate.
Independent schools expand resources, provision, experimentation and employment in the education sector, increase diversity and choice for parents, and decrease the burden on the State.
With regard to George going to Eton, why would you send your children to boarding school if you didn't have to. I appreciate for some eg military it is unavoidable, but you have them for such a short period of time why would you offload them? When our children left to go to University it was a real wrench and I still miss them not being here even though it has freed up our lives.
Prince William went to Eton so presumably liked it enough to sign George up (or put him down or whatever it is you do for Eton).
Why can’t he go to a state school? Serious question.
With regard to George going to Eton, why would you send your children to boarding school if you didn't have to. I appreciate for some eg military it is unavoidable, but you have them for such a short period of time why would you offload them? When our children left to go to University it was a real wrench and I still miss them not being here even though it has freed up our lives.
Prince William went to Eton so presumably liked it enough to sign George up (or put him down or whatever it is you do for Eton).
Why can’t he go to a state school? Serious question.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
That’s a very sneering view. I’d argue that they offer excellent education, small group teaching, allowing pupils to greater attainment than they would likely get at the local state school AND social polish and access to privilege.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
That’s a very sneering view. I’d argue that they offer excellent education, small group teaching, allowing pupils to greater attainment than they would likely get at the local state school AND social polish and access to privilege.
It accurately represents prejudices about private schools and class in the UK though, which is a very British problem.
Most other countries have an independent school sector, which is encouraged.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
Utter rubbish.
Sorry but the one thing a private school will give you from the age of 13 onwards is a set of contacts (friends from school and parents of those friends) that could well set you up for life..
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
Utter rubbish.
Why do you say that is rubbish? It is obviously true and I say that as someone who sent his son to RGS. It provides both in abundance.
Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles
I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event
I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.
He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful. Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD? Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
We've effectively tried that approach over the last two decades, and it didn't work.
Literally everything the MoD does is underfunded. The only solution to that is to cut entire programs or capabilities and concentrate on the absolutely essential.
As we have the 6th highest military budget in the world, if everything is underfunded then there are really only a few possibilities:
1) our military is massively inefficient by being both spendthrift and on a shoestring.
2) everyone else is underfunded and incapable too.
If 2) we shouldn't worry too much. If 1) we should sort that out before chucking good money after bad.
Yes, but bear in mind that ever since Osborne, our military budget is bigger on paper after the Treasury added new line items to hide reductions in spending on things that go bang, principally the nuclear deterrent, pensions, and most recently intelligence services. ETA similarly the overseas aid budget is now spent on British 4-star hotels.
Yep, the defence budget is stuffed with things not related to the ability of the armed forces to break things and kill people. Add the cost of the nuclear deterrent and the money available to fund the conventional military isn't generous.
Isn't it true of most countries that military budgets are largely wasted on bloated prestige arms and cosy if not corrupt relationships between military and suppliers? It is a great British tradition too to send ships to sea with rotten biscuits and rancid meat.
The exceptions are mostly those countries actually fighting for their existence like Ukraine or Israel.
I think it highly likely that any increased funds will be spaffed up the wall exactly the same way. Same old, same old.
After all,,the biggest threat to the security of us and our allies isn't a large number of Russian soldiers seeking to occupy physical space. It's Russian agents in St Petersburg basements seeking to occupy online and mental spaces.
And nobody has really worked out what to do about that problem.
Very much so, and also buying up politicians across the world.
Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.
Why?
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.
Utter rubbish.
Sorry but the one thing a private school will give you from the age of 13 onwards is a set of contacts (friends from school and parents of those friends) that could well set you up for life..
Yup. It’s definitely set me up for life and there’s no point denying it.
There is, because it isn't true.
I have no contacts or friends from my school or parents of those friends who have "set me up for life".
The closest I can think of is a few close friends from university (state school, as it happens) who've helped me out a few times.
This old school tie thing is a myth that hasn't been true for decades. If then.
1. The character is called Dr Who, but nobody in the fiction knows that, probably not even him, so within it he’s referred to as ‘the Doctor’. But his name is Dr Who. The public know this, and the public is always right. Correcting the public on this obvious point – and billing him as ‘The Doctor’ on the end credits – makes a production look quite mad. Similarly, those who travel with Dr Who are his friends, or his assistants. Not ‘companions’, which is positively Victorian and cringe-inducing.
2. Doctor Who is a British show aimed squarely at a British audience. Everybody else prefers it that way.
3. This is always, primarily, a children’s show for ages five to 12. Everybody else is there on sufferance. Adults may well enjoy the innovation, playfulness and whimsy, but teenagers must never be appealed to. That way lies disaster.
4. Similarly, ‘sci-fi’ fans in general must be totally ignored. It is not for them.
The Gestapo marched hundreds of thousands of innocent people to their deaths.
I've ended private schools' tax breaks to invest in state schools.
No responsible leader makes vile comparisons like this. Kemi Badenoch is not fit to be Prime Minister.
My ending VAT relief on private schools she has actually just reduced choice in education by forcing some smaller private schools to close and made the remaining private schools more exclusive by reducing the number of scholarships and bursaries they provide
With regard to George going to Eton, why would you send your children to boarding school if you didn't have to. I appreciate for some eg military it is unavoidable, but you have them for such a short period of time why would you offload them? When our children left to go to University it was a real wrench and I still miss them not being here even though it has freed up our lives.
Prince William went to Eton so presumably liked it enough to sign George up (or put him down or whatever it is you do for Eton).
Why can’t he go to a state school? Serious question.
Tbh I'd not given HRH's schooling any thought until seeing it brought up here a few minutes ago.
The Gestapo marched hundreds of thousands of innocent people to their deaths.
I've ended private schools' tax breaks to invest in state schools.
No responsible leader makes vile comparisons like this. Kemi Badenoch is not fit to be Prime Minister.
My ending VAT relief on private schools she has actually just reduced choice in education by forcing some smaller private schools to close and made the remaining private schools more exclusive by reducing the number of scholarships and bursaries they provide
'My ending' !! We'll have you for this! Banged to rights!
Comments
The second is that implementing an age ban essentially requires everyone to verify their identity, which has huge implications for civil liberties, which we really don't want to give that sort of power to governments at a time of growing authoritarianism.
The Gestapo marched hundreds of thousands of innocent people to their deaths.
I've ended private schools' tax breaks to invest in state schools.
No responsible leader makes vile comparisons like this. Kemi Badenoch is not fit to be Prime Minister.
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/19962/countermanded-elections-18th-june-2026
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/winston-churchill/how-winston-churchill-and-the-conservative-party-lost-the-1945-election
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp92pr5pr48o
https://x.com/DavidMKeyes/status/2066738359272144910
Incidentally, she also seems to have confused the Gestapo with the SS in that post.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20yzm84r7lo
Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD?
Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.
Literally everything the MoD does is underfunded. The only solution to that is to cut entire programs or capabilities and concentrate on the absolutely essential.
But being a sore loser is one thing; being a sore winner another.
I assume as nobody has seen it that is a hostage to fortune
Private schools great = no whine
A decent example of the market in action ?
1) our military is massively inefficient by being both spendthrift and on a shoestring.
2) everyone else is underfunded and incapable too.
If 2) we shouldn't worry too much. If 1) we should sort that out before chucking good money after bad.
The MoD needs enough of a cash infusion to start funding some large projects - GCAP, Dreadnought and the Type 26/31 builds - without having to cut corners, which will save money in the long term. In its current form the DIP does not do that, so the cycle of saving pennies at the cost of pounds will continue.
However President Tinydick TACO'd out part way through.
Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.
Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.
I have a son who is now 18 so is past the age he would be effected. But we live ina fairly remote place and he went to school 9 miles away. The chances of him having friends he could spend time with face to face were very limited. But he had a very fuill and active social life with friends online - some from school, some from much further away. There are those who argue that online friendship is no repalacement for face to face but that ignores the fact that like minded groups of friends can still form close bonds without having to actually meet physically. This is the way much of our youth now ineracts. It is as normal for them as meeting your mates at the park was 30 years ago. And in fact they get far more time with their friends than we ever did when we were limited by curfews, by distance and by weather.
Taking that away is going to cause a huge amount of upset and wreck childrens social lives. How many parents are going to be happy having their kids off roaming the streets to meet with friends? The idea that all the kids are suddenly going to start going to youth clubs (which mostly no longer exist) or play football together in the park where they will be looked upon as a nuisance and driven away by adults, is a complete joke. I think the issue of social isolation has been massively understated.
As a result kids will very much go looking for ways around the ban. It has already happened in Australia where anecdotaly most children are still on social media simply using false ages or VPNs. So very clearly for me, not only will it not reduce social medaia usage but we don't want it to do so. This really is Cnut holding back the tide.
Plus if we drive behaviour underground it makes matters worse not better.
I would far rather my kids be on social media openly and honestly, on terms and conditions I agree with them (including usage limits) using official apps, than them masking their usage and the only visibility I can see is they've been on a web browser.
Prohibition does not work and driving behaviour underground only makes it more dangerous.
There's no argument that the private owners didn't extract £bns from Thames Water by borrowing against the assets and cash flow that could have been spent on investment or not borrowed.
Previously, it had owned 80%, which was bad enough.
Why is it we as a nation are not learning from very basic mistakes?
(Unless it was a highly Machiavellian plot to keep large sums of Macquarie's assets in the country so they could be seized to make up for previous frauds, but candidly that seems unlikely.)
Otherwise, on general cybersecurity grounds, government advice used to be to shield one's identity. Now it wants us – grandparents and grandchildren alike – to upload passports, headshots and inside leg measurements to any number of sketchy, foreign-owned sites.
The fact is that laws requiring the nationalised water firms not to pollute already existed pre-privatisation, but they were routinely ignored.
If the nationalised water firms polluted there was not much that could be done. Theoretically fines could be issued, but since it was nationalised, the fine was meaningless and nobody paid much mind.
There was a rapid and immediate improvement in accountability and enforcement post-privatisation as all of a sudden fines for pollution had teeth. There became a very real cost to shareholders that if you pollute and get a fine then that comes out of your profitability. That only happened thanks to privatisation.
The exceptions are mostly those countries actually fighting for their existence like Ukraine or Israel.
I think it highly likely that any increased funds will be spaffed up the wall exactly the same way. Same old, same old.
It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.
Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.
But that'd use up the RN's operational missile. Another operational missile won't likely be commissioned until 2028. There are plenty of sailors standing about on the carrier decks of the tethered to the dock RN that question this sort of trhing.
Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.
What you call a tax break for me will actually lead to a tax penalty for you.
I'm not too worried. Ukraine have already sunk their fleet in the Black Sea with our drones or money, so it's not like they're coming out on top.
Nonetheless the idea that the public sector should run anything is clearly compromised forever.
And nobody has really worked out what to do about that problem.
Independent schools expand resources, provision, experimentation and employment in the education sector, increase diversity and choice for parents, and decrease the burden on the State.
Most other countries have an independent school sector, which is encouraged.
I have no contacts or friends from my school or parents of those friends who have "set me up for life".
The closest I can think of is a few close friends from university (state school, as it happens) who've helped me out a few times.
This old school tie thing is a myth that hasn't been true for decades. If then.
https://spectator.com/article/twenty-ways-to-fix-doctor-who/ Behind paywall.
2. Doctor Who is a British show aimed squarely at a British audience. Everybody else prefers it that way.
3. This is always, primarily, a children’s show for ages five to 12. Everybody else is there on sufferance. Adults may well enjoy the innovation, playfulness and whimsy, but teenagers must never be appealed to. That way lies disaster.
4. Similarly, ‘sci-fi’ fans in general must be totally ignored. It is not for them.