Kwarteng has agreed with CF industries to restart production of CO2
Will the size of the large cheque required be revealed or will Kwarteng claim it's commercially confidential even though it's a direct subsidy to due to lack of other options.
So I'm not the brightest, but if its costing more to produce the CO2 due to gas prices, you put the price of the CO2 up, the food industry needs it and has to pay, and then puts its prices up. Problem solved via economics. At the end the consumer pays. Why hasn't that worked here?
I believe it is because the CO2 is a by-product of fertiliser production which is what uses the gas. And due to the increase in gas prices the fertiliser factory has stopped operating for now - a commercial decision - which means no CO2 is being produced. So economics doesn't solve this one directly as the fertiliser company has no wish to produce the stuff at the current costs.
If Labour's PR department has any sense (?) they will keep their messaging clear and simple:
The Tories' Triple Whammy:
• More taxes
• Bigger bills
• Higher prices
But all their conference delegates want to talk about is:
• Palestine
• Trans Rights v Women’s Rights
• Internal organisational matters
Although to be fair the internal organisational matter is potentially very important: the changes Starmer is seeking would make it less likely that the party will once again lurch into Corbyn-style madness. That's important for the question of whether it's safe to vote Labour.
Don't think it will feature in many people's GE decision.
Just been to my local Aldi. As always, full shelves, no shortages. Actually sweetcorn was out of stock but that's the only thing in the supermarket and I was looking.
Could it simply be that the stock management of certain supermarkets is ... quasi-effective?
Or that high volume urban stores are prioritised for deliveries? Stores here have apology notices up prominently. Only one I've seen in Newcastle was in KFC.
The Aldi way of doing supermarkets is probably more robust to delivery SNAFUs. One brand/size of most products, we'll sell you a kayak but only for two weeks of the year, that sort of thing. The model most UK shoppers seem to prefer has a lot more product choice, which gives more potential to go wrong. Nobody is going to starve, but the system is no longer working happily. As always, the nation can either ignore the red flashing lights or ignore them. You can make a case either way.
(Anecdata: after a couple of weeks where things seemed to be improving, Tesco home delivery are back to having 20% or so of my usuals unavailable.)
TBH I don't think its true that shoppers prefer more choice. They want choice, but not as much as they get offered. A huge fixture with 12 different kinds of lentils will not only sell very little volume in that space, the more different items you add in the less you sell.
Aldi and Lidl sometimes push the proven less is more approach too far, but they have the right balance. Which is why they have had sustained strong growth and the big supermarkets haven't.
As a big Aldi fan what is it that eg tescos don't do which inhibits them vs Aldi/Lidl?
Cost, space, choice. Stores which are too big, with too many products, which cost too much to run.
Just been to my local Aldi. As always, full shelves, no shortages. Actually sweetcorn was out of stock but that's the only thing in the supermarket and I was looking.
Could it simply be that the stock management of certain supermarkets is ... quasi-effective?
A relative is running a business which involves couriers and local delivery.
Apparently there are considerable variations in pay and conditions in the truck/van delivery business.
(a) Some organisations seem to have the view that there should be an infinite number of drivers out there ready to work at what ever work conditions they, the hiring company wishes. And if that is not correct, reality is wrong.
(b) Others have adapted by trying to find out what it is that the drivers want. And it is not always just more money - looking at you, Amazon.
Quite a few courier outfits have collapsed because of (a)
I suspect there is a split between smaller stores who understand the new state of affairs means better pay and conditions for their low wage workers. The bigger, more British ones have relationships into government and reckon they can lobby the powers that be to bail them out and let in a whole bunch more Eastern Europeans.
Ultimately, companies will have to pay more to lower paid workers. This will make them less competitive and some of them will go bust. Then unemployment will start to rise again and wages will drop until a new equilibrium is reached and the UK has become a bit poorer.
Why would we be poorer? If a new equilibrium is reached with higher wages then we will be richer not poorer. The least productive businesses are the ones that die, and they were deflating our wealth per capita not increasing it.
Increasing numbers of people on minimum wage, subsidised by taxes of those not on minimum wage, deflates our economy it doesn't improve it per capita.
Kwarteng has agreed with CF industries to restart production of CO2
Will the size of the large cheque required be revealed or will Kwarteng claim it's commercially confidential even though it's a direct subsidy to due to lack of other options.
So I'm not the brightest, but if its costing more to produce the CO2 due to gas prices, you put the price of the CO2 up, the food industry needs it and has to pay, and then puts its prices up. Problem solved via economics. At the end the consumer pays. Why hasn't that worked here?
because the CO2 was a by product of fertiliser production which was stopped because the price of Gas made production uneconomic.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
I wonder what Emma thinks about people using her in this way as part of their political crusades.
Kwarteng has agreed with CF industries to restart production of CO2
Will the size of the large cheque required be revealed or will Kwarteng claim it's commercially confidential even though it's a direct subsidy to due to lack of other options.
So I'm not the brightest, but if its costing more to produce the CO2 due to gas prices, you put the price of the CO2 up, the food industry needs it and has to pay, and then puts its prices up. Problem solved via economics. At the end the consumer pays. Why hasn't that worked here?
I believe it is because the CO2 is a by-product of fertiliser production which is what uses the gas. And due to the increase in gas prices the fertiliser factory has stopped operating for now - a commercial decision - which means no CO2 is being produced. So economics doesn't solve this one directly as the fertiliser company has no wish to produce the stuff at the current costs.
Fair enough. Must be some by product though, if the country is about to starve because of the fertilizer plant not running...
Kwarteng has agreed with CF industries to restart production of CO2
Will the size of the large cheque required be revealed or will Kwarteng claim it's commercially confidential even though it's a direct subsidy to due to lack of other options.
So I'm not the brightest, but if its costing more to produce the CO2 due to gas prices, you put the price of the CO2 up, the food industry needs it and has to pay, and then puts its prices up. Problem solved via economics. At the end the consumer pays. Why hasn't that worked here?
I believe it is because the CO2 is a by-product of fertiliser production which is what uses the gas. And due to the increase in gas prices the fertiliser factory has stopped operating for now - a commercial decision - which means no CO2 is being produced. So economics doesn't solve this one directly as the fertiliser company has no wish to produce the stuff at the current costs.
Fair enough. Must be some by product though, if the country is about to starve because of the fertilizer plant not running...
If Labour's PR department has any sense (?) they will keep their messaging clear and simple:
The Tories' Triple Whammy:
• More taxes
• Bigger bills
• Higher prices
Their problem is their track record. That is exactly what they delivered when in power previously.....
I don't recall them putting up taxes to the extent Boris' High-Tax Tories are about to. But in any case, people have short memories and focus on what is happening on the government's watch: a TRIPLE WHAMMY.
If Labour's PR department has any sense (?) they will keep their messaging clear and simple:
The Tories' Triple Whammy:
• More taxes
• Bigger bills
• Higher prices
But all their conference delegates want to talk about is:
• Palestine
• Trans Rights v Women’s Rights
• Internal organisational matters
Although to be fair the internal organisational matter is potentially very important: the changes Starmer is seeking would make it less likely that the party will once again lurch into Corbyn-style madness. That's important for the question of whether it's safe to vote Labour.
Don't think it will feature in many people's GE decision.
Oh, it certainly will. Not directly, obviously, but the two biggest issues Labour faces are that they are still tainted with the stain of having embraced a Britain-hating, IRA-supporting, antisemitic far-left loon as leader, and that they still don't look like a serious alternative party of government. Of course having Starmer as leader is very reassuring on the first point, but there will still be nagging doubts amongst potential swing voters, and those doubts need to be addressed. This change, if he can bring it off, will help reinforce the narrative that the party has changed.
If I were a Labour supporter, though, I'd be more worried about the second issue. The front-bench team remains woefully weak and largely invisible.
Australian documents showed French submarine project was at risk for years https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australian-documents-showed-french-submarine-project-was-risk-years-2021-09-21/ ...Yet as early as September 2018, an independent oversight board led by a former U.S. Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter had advised Australia to look at alternatives to the French submarine, and questioned whether the project was in the national interest, a 2020 public report from the country's Auditor-General shows.
Australian parliamentary hearings and reports on the project, first priced at $40 billion and more recently at $60 billion, even before construction had begun, also showed problems emerging. In June the defence secretary told parliament "contingency planning" for the programme was under way.
"They would have to have their eyes shut not to realise the danger they were facing," said Rex Patrick, an independent senator for South Australia, referring to France.
Government ministers said this week Canberra had been "up front" with Paris about the problems.
A French lawmaker also raised questions in the country's parliament in June about Australian concerns over delays, and whether Australia might be considering submarine alternatives, French government records show"...
...in June, senators, including Patrick, asked panel chairman William Hilarides, a former vice admiral in the U.S. Navy, if it had advised the government to cancel the French contract.
Hilarides, who had overseen ship and submarine construction for the U.S. Navy, said the panel's advice was confidential.
The former head of BAE Systems Submarines, Murray Easton, who had turned around a delayed British nuclear submarine programme, joined the panel in February, contract notices show.
It met by videoconference 10 times by June, including confidential briefings for its U.S. members at the Australian embassy in Washington, the parliament was told...
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
What a hopeful and refreshing read; the Professor's piece I mean.
I have grandchildren who are half-British, half Thai and live in Thailand. Two of them are very keen on, and appear quite good at, sport. They could, and probably would, play for either Britain or Thailand if one or the other came calling.
Yes, I thought you'd like it.
It's a great totem for flushing out those with utterly moronic views.
Happy little soul, aren't you. I might, and do, disagree with you on occasion, but when I have actually been rude to you.
I'm not the one trying to abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends. I find that extremely rude, and the post itself is softly bigoted.
If you find it "helpful and refreshing" then, yes, I'm afraid you do have moronic views.
I certainly wouldn't try to ' abuse and exploit Emma for my own political ends'. The fact is that as a result of globalisation she's got a very diverse background, and seeing that recognised is good. I find it quite amusing to see various nationalists tying themselves in knots trying to 'claim' her.
Who are these "nationalists" you speak of that are trying to "claim" her? You mean people celebrating the fact that someone British who's proudly competing as a Briton has secured a British win? Because if you do, then you're saying most of the population here are "nationalist" on the basis that someone with mixed ancestry must always be seen as a migrant first, and a Briton second. I find that offensive.
The only ones doing the claiming here are the softly-bigoted progressive Left.
I went to an international school. My sister was born in Canada. My parents were born in India. I have half-British/half-Columbian cousins. My Uncle lives in Australia. My other cousin married a Kenyan lady. My wife is Bulgarian. My daughter is British, but with Bulgarian ancestry too, and I have other family members who married fellow Britons too.
It might surprise you to we all celebrated Emma's win, and we all have an affection for the UK and common roots here too.
There's nothing exclusive or anachronistic about national identity, and long may it remain so.
Linkedin = woke propoganda feed. It is only good for professional news, it is not a good gauge of public opinion.
However, national identity is rooted very deeply in the human psyche. It cannot be deconstructed to nothing as Prof Gianosso and his fellow woke propogandists desperately hope. Nationalism is very much alive, particularly in supposedly progressive countries. Look at Scotland for example. There is a definite birther movement there, that has in the past revealed itself in comments on this website.
My own life experience living in supposedly progressive european countries (and not really amongst the woke elite) is that Nationalism is very much in existence, and that I would be accepted as a guest but would never be regarded as one of them.
In the end I have come to believe that Britain is unique in being able to successfully absorb immigrants within its national identity; but it is the exception rather than the rule; a historical abberation. It is this quality that many people around the world admire. This realisation was a turning point - it made me proud to be British.
Yes, I agree. Good post.
I think it's also the case on LinkedIn that those who disagree (like me) simply don't say anything. To do so would be to risk a pile on that would probably be fatal to my professional career, and it would be broadcast to your whole network at the same time.
That's why I'm venting on here instead.
I use LinkedIn regularly. There are some (and that post is an example) who use click-bait to gain "likes" and shares to raise their following and profile. Most, like yourself, are sensible enough to keep their political views to themselves. To suggest LinkedIn is "woke" is utter bollocks though. It is a business social media platform. Most people who do business avoid posting controversial views, and should any views be posted they tend to be relatively mainstream/centrist as a result. A regular put down on LinkedIn is "this is not Facebook". Nor is it PB.
No one was suggesting Linkedin is woke. But it is full of woke clickbait every time I log on. Plus, woke is the new centrist.
Woke is business friendly - non-woke is politically incorrect which means you could upset potential customers.
Yes I do know that a lot of customers are non-woke but targetting them has a habit of upsetting people who know how linkedIn's banning algorithms work.
Businesses like being woke because it is a largely cost free way of showing they are progressive, giving them much more slack for paying low wages and helping support authoritarian regimes.
Yup, the best ones are when Amazon and such do all of that rainbow shite. They get away with industrial scale tax avoidance, horrible working conditions and loss-leading with their storefront to hollow out local competitors and local high streets. But it's all good, they have rainbows on their website so who gives a fuck about all that.
So I assume that, like me, you don't use Amazon? I care more about your first criticism than your second, so won't use them.
Not too long ago we needed to order some new audio out cables, and we decided to make the effort to find a non-Amazon website to order them from.
The next day we received the cable. From Amazon. Sent as a gift, ordered by the website we had bought from.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
I wonder what Emma thinks about people using her in this way as part of their political crusades.
What we need to do now is concentrate on fundamental changes within the British system of government and make Parliament far more accountable to the electorate. But that is something that would have been pointless when so much regulation was being made in a supranational body even more remote than Parliament. It is just a step in the right direction.
If you view it as a continuum, the election of BoZo on a mandate to "Get Brexit Done" has been a retrograde step.
He is removing power from Parliament and consolidating it in his own hands.
Absolutely ad I am pleased to say I have never supported him (nor May). But at least we will have the ability to get rid of him and move forward rather than continually and regressively placing power in the hands of a remote and overreaching European political system. I have a (vain) hope that when the Scots finally get independence they will see sense and not swap remote Westminster governance for even more remote Brussels governance.
Richard, we always had the power to remove the remote overreaching European political entity from our lives and, indeed, not so many years ago we did exactly that.
Because democratically-elected governments chose not to do so for a few decades does not mean the concept was not a democratic one (membership of the EU).
Since the only way to do it was to actually leave then it seems my case is made. This has always been the failure of the Remainer argument and a lesson you apparently still haven't learnt.
If Labour's PR department has any sense (?) they will keep their messaging clear and simple:
The Tories' Triple Whammy:
• More taxes
• Bigger bills
• Higher prices
But all their conference delegates want to talk about is:
• Palestine
• Trans Rights v Women’s Rights
• Internal organisational matters
Although to be fair the internal organisational matter is potentially very important: the changes Starmer is seeking would make it less likely that the party will once again lurch into Corbyn-style madness. That's important for the question of whether it's safe to vote Labour.
Don't think it will feature in many people's GE decision.
Oh, it certainly will. Not directly, obviously, but the two biggest issues Labour faces are that they are still tainted with the stain of having embraced a Britain-hating, IRA-supporting, antisemitic far-left loon as leader, and that they still don't look like a serious alternative party of government. Of course having Starmer as leader is very reassuring on the first point, but there will still be nagging doubts amongst potential swing voters, and those doubts need to be addressed. This change, if he can bring it off, will help reinforce the narrative that the party has changed.
If I were a Labour supporter, though, I'd be more worried about the second issue. The front-bench team remains woefully weak and largely invisible.
And if changing the leadership process needs doing, better to do it now than next year (when a general election is likely to be in the offing).
And, let's be honest, the memberships of Labour and the Conservatives don't have a brilliant record of selecting leaders who are attractive to the general public.
Comments
Increasing numbers of people on minimum wage, subsidised by taxes of those not on minimum wage, deflates our economy it doesn't improve it per capita.
If I were a Labour supporter, though, I'd be more worried about the second issue. The front-bench team remains woefully weak and largely invisible.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australian-documents-showed-french-submarine-project-was-risk-years-2021-09-21/
...Yet as early as September 2018, an independent oversight board led by a former U.S. Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter had advised Australia to look at alternatives to the French submarine, and questioned whether the project was in the national interest, a 2020 public report from the country's Auditor-General shows.
Australian parliamentary hearings and reports on the project, first priced at $40 billion and more recently at $60 billion, even before construction had begun, also showed problems emerging. In June the defence secretary told parliament "contingency planning" for the programme was under way.
"They would have to have their eyes shut not to realise the danger they were facing," said Rex Patrick, an independent senator for South Australia, referring to France.
Government ministers said this week Canberra had been "up front" with Paris about the problems.
A French lawmaker also raised questions in the country's parliament in June about Australian concerns over delays, and whether Australia might be considering submarine alternatives, French government records show"...
...in June, senators, including Patrick, asked panel chairman William Hilarides, a former vice admiral in the U.S. Navy, if it had advised the government to cancel the French contract.
Hilarides, who had overseen ship and submarine construction for the U.S. Navy, said the panel's advice was confidential.
The former head of BAE Systems Submarines, Murray Easton, who had turned around a delayed British nuclear submarine programme, joined the panel in February, contract notices show.
It met by videoconference 10 times by June, including confidential briefings for its U.S. members at the Australian embassy in Washington, the parliament was told...
The next day we received the cable. From Amazon. Sent as a gift, ordered by the website we had bought from.
Resistance to Amazon is futile.
And in the short term there probably isn't a cheaper alternative.
And, let's be honest, the memberships of Labour and the Conservatives don't have a brilliant record of selecting leaders who are attractive to the general public.