Presiding Officer in Holyrood has right idea - if minister makes statement outside Parliament he doesn’t get to make it again inside but just goes straight to opposition questions. Over to you Lindsay Hoyle
Doesn’t that actually defeat the object of the exercise and play into the hands of the wrong thing, where you actually want to hear it said in the house, preferably first?
Allie Hodgkins-Brown @AllieHBNews · 1m Wednesday’s Daily TELEGRAPH: “Macron may offer up UN seat in push for EU army” #TomorrowsPapersToday
==
Definitely trying to lose the presidential race next year me thinks
I don't believe that at all but its a massive, massive step if that is done.
And its something that could only have been facilitated post-Brexit. The idea of Britain giving up its seat to the EU was unthinkable, and the idea of two seats going to one was also pretty unthinkable. But one going up to its next federal level - that just makes sense.
I wonder if Macron's plan is to get the UK kicked out in favour of India.
How could that ever happen? We have a veto on being ejected. It's why the 5 permanent members are permanent. I'm actually not sure is there's a mechanism to give the French one to the EU. All 5 members have to vote the EU into it and then all 6 then need to vote France out, and the EU isn't a recognised sovereign state so can it even hold a SC seat? What they're really saying is that they'll keep the seat but allow some EU input into votes.
The UK being kicked out is [next to] impossible*.
The French one going to the EU is easily done, if the French are happy with it. Just recognise the EU as a sovereign state and the continuation of the French state and it takes the French place. But then the French [and the other 26] all leave the UN altogether, which would only be right if this is happening.
If this happens it won't be the first exchange it'd be the third. Republic of China (Taiwan) was replaced as a permanent member by [People's Republic of] China. The USSR was replaced as a permanent member by Russia. And if the UK ever dissolved the UK would be replaced with England. There's no reason France can't be replaced with the EU if they make a federal unified country official.
* Its technically possible but its not going to happen.
Yeah the successor state method would be easy but that's obviously not how they'd want to do it. It would be the ultimate federalising step, the EU becomes a country. Anyway, it's not on the cards. The Telegraph just has a crap headline based on a quote from one Italian MEP/non-entity.
It's a cracking quote tho.
The Italian MEP is entirely right. If France wants total support from the EU for an EU army and navy, and if France wants complete EU support in its diplomatic spazz-out against the Anglosphere, then France must show willing to the EU: and give up its UNSC seat to the EU, as the EU is then the primary actor in foreign and military policy - Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland (and others) surely deserve equal input into UN decisions if their young people are to be sent to die in EU military adventures alongside the French
The Italian MEP exposes French arrogance, posturing and hypocrisy. The French want EU help and they want an EU army (that the French lead) but the French will never give up the UNSC seat because it is French and La Gloire and croissants and etc etc etc
Do the German Greens (and also the Social Democrats) support the idea of a European army? They're likely to be in government in a few days' time.
Daily Express has a “Save Our Boilers” campaign? What the f is that?
If you were wondering if your 18 year old Worcester will get through another winter or two, what would you do right now?
Install a new gas combi boiler
First up, thanks for the answer Big G.
It does raise several questions. It’s a given gas bills are cheaper than electric at this sort of thing? Are you installing new gas combi this autumn rather than electric, because saving the planet and human race comes down those bad countries screwing it up with emissions, ie China, you paying higher heating bathing bills a mere drop in mighty planet saving ocean in comparison?
Or, have you actually calculated through life running costs of new gas boiler? Will the bills always remain cheaper than electric combi? At what point in the boilers life might you find cost flip over? What does no new gas boilers after 2025 do to running costs?
Is it really that straightforward a decision now?
You should use a gas boiler, because it is much more efficient to boil water using gas directly, rather that going:
- gas to - heat (and pressure) to - electricity to - transmission network to - home to - causing electrical resistance which is thrown off as heat in your water system
The gas combi boiler will have a thermal efficiency of c. 90%.
The electrical route will have an efficiency of maybe 50% once you take into account transmission losses, etc. Unless green electricity becomes spectacularly abundant and cheap, it is more efficient to just use natural gas to heat water at home.
The UK will get a FTA with the US when the US joins CPTPP. Anyway, most people voted for Brexit of reasons of sovereignty and immigration, not one trade deal. Trade deals in general only contribute a tiny amount to GDP, and almost all those returns go to the top 10%.
The UK will get a FTA with the US when the US joins CPTPP. Anyway, most people voted for Brexit of reasons of sovereignty and immigration, not one trade deal. Trade deals in general only contribute a tiny amount to GDP, and almost all those returns go to the top 10%.
That's based on the rather big assumption that the US will join CPTPP. Let's not forget that the original TPP was much more... how to put this... pro-American. Will the US sign up to a trade deal where they are just another equal participant?
Daily Express has a “Save Our Boilers” campaign? What the f is that?
If you were wondering if your 18 year old Worcester will get through another winter or two, what would you do right now?
Install a new gas combi boiler
First up, thanks for the answer Big G.
It does raise several questions. It’s a given gas bills are cheaper than electric at this sort of thing? Are you installing new gas combi this autumn rather than electric, because saving the planet and human race comes down those bad countries screwing it up with emissions, ie China, you paying higher heating bathing bills a mere drop in mighty planet saving ocean in comparison?
Or, have you actually calculated through life running costs of new gas boiler? Will the bills always remain cheaper than electric combi? At what point in the boilers life might you find cost flip over? What does no new gas boilers after 2025 do to running costs?
Is it really that straightforward a decision now?
You should use a gas boiler, because it is much more efficient to boil water using gas directly, rather that going:
- gas to - heat (and pressure) to - electricity to - transmission network to - home to - causing electrical resistance which is thrown off as heat in your water system
The gas combi boiler will have a thermal efficiency of c. 90%.
The electrical route will have an efficiency of maybe 50% once you take into account transmission losses, etc. Unless green electricity becomes spectacularly abundant and cheap, it is more efficient to just use natural gas to heat water at home.
If we 'overbuilt' our wind capacity such that we're over 100% of capacity on the windiest days, could electric combis be a way to utilise the extra energy say during a winter low ? (Houses using an efficient gas combi the rest if the time) ?
The UK will get a FTA with the US when the US joins CPTPP. Anyway, most people voted for Brexit of reasons of sovereignty and immigration, not one trade deal. Trade deals in general only contribute a tiny amount to GDP, and almost all those returns go to the top 10%.
That's based on the rather big assumption that the US will join CPTPP. Let's not forget that the original TPP was much more... how to put this... pro-American. Will the US sign up to a trade deal where they are just another equal participant?
The US's current trauma is adjusting to the effect it is no longer the sole superpower. When that adjustment is complete it will recognize it is just another country.
"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will face demands for new taxes and billions in additional spending as he negotiates support from the NDP and Bloc Québécois, following an election in which voters denied the Liberal Party the free rein of a majority mandate.
Because the Liberals are just a handful of seats short of a majority, Mr. Trudeau will only need to rely on one of the three main opposition parties to pass any government bill. In the last Parliament, the Liberals often turned to the NDP for key confidence votes. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet are Mr. Trudeau’s most natural allies in the new minority Parliament, although the Conservatives could also support some bills.
At a news conference in Vancouver on Tuesday, Mr. Singh said he hoped to work with the Liberals on shared areas of interest, including child care and pharmacare. The NDP Leader said he didn’t discuss policy details with Mr. Trudeau during their call on election night. In the last days of the campaign, Mr. Singh said a wealth tax would be his priority issue in a minority government. When asked about that comment Tuesday, he said the cost of the pandemic should be offset by new taxes on high-wealth individuals and corporations."
It seems pretty well over for the Republican party as an ordinary conservative party. Those who oppose Trump are giving up fighting for it, as they see it as beyond redemption.
The difference between Conservatism and right win populism in US today? Is keeping Conservative votes on board simply because you are not a lefty liberal sustainable in long run if you are not yourself a conservative, merely a fellow traveller for personal gain on the beliefs and opinions behind that term?
If you capture control of the administration of enough of the electoral system in order to permanently rig it, perhaps. The Republicans are trying to head down that road.
It seems pretty well over for the Republican party as an ordinary conservative party. Those who oppose Trump are giving up fighting for it, as they see it as beyond redemption.
The difference between Conservatism and right win populism in US today? Is keeping Conservative votes on board simply because you are not a lefty liberal sustainable in long run if you are not yourself a conservative, merely a fellow traveller for personal gain on the beliefs and opinions behind that term?
If you capture control of the administration of enough of the electoral system in order to permanently rig it, perhaps. The Republicans are trying to head down that road.
Now, maybe I'm just an incorrigible optimist, but I'm sceptical that you can "permanently rig it". It's very hard to enact measures that move the needle by more than a percent or two, and you will simultaneously boost your opponents turnout.
I have never wanted a Trade Deal with the USA because of the many down sides. It is heartening to see that PB Brexiteers have come round to that view. Surely it is time then to dynamically align with Single Market food and agricultural standards then, so the borders in the Irish Sea and Channel become less obstructive?
I have never wanted a Trade Deal with the USA because of the many down sides. It is heartening to see that PB Brexiteers have come round to that view. Surely it is time then to dynamically align with Single Market food and agricultural standards then, so the borders in the Irish Sea and Channel become less obstructive?
Why would we want to reduce our agricultural standards to those of the French or Dutch?
Evergrande have apparently have magically found the money down the back of the sofa to make the bond interest payment....
To domestic bond holders. I wonder what happens to the ones overseas.
One of my greatest trades was the realization that - contrary to popular belief - domestic debt holders will always do better. People worry about foreign debt... But the reality is that foreigners are first against the wall when the debt restructuring happens.
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
Really,I thought it was built upon extra money for the NHS and a desire from workers at minimum wage jobs to reduce the supply of foreign workers willing to work for little to nothing.
I have never wanted a Trade Deal with the USA because of the many down sides. It is heartening to see that PB Brexiteers have come round to that view. Surely it is time then to dynamically align with Single Market food and agricultural standards then, so the borders in the Irish Sea and Channel become less obstructive?
Those lads who put in a big shift telling everyone that chlorinated chicken was a good thing actually must feel a bit of a tit.
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
I have never wanted a Trade Deal with the USA because of the many down sides. It is heartening to see that PB Brexiteers have come round to that view. Surely it is time then to dynamically align with Single Market food and agricultural standards then, so the borders in the Irish Sea and Channel become less obstructive?
Those lads who put in a big shift telling everyone that chlorinated chicken was a good thing actually must feel a bit of a tit.
Top tip: get chlorinated chicken at home by taking a regular chicken down the public baths and swimming with it.
France are not offering up their permanent UNSC seat to the EU. An Italian MEP has said it should be part of the discussion if France wants an EU army.
Rubbish headline from The Telegraph.
France would never do that.
They might agree to use it to support an EU position with that they were happy with most of the time, though.
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
I'm sorry, but (in aggregate) trade deficits and surpluses are not the consequences of free trade agreements, but by household savings rates.
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
Yes but we should remember that another significant component of the deficit is repeatedly selling our best companies (and even our best football teams) so their profits flow overseas.
On the subject of our "existing trade surplus with the US" we should note that they think they have a surplus. Economic statistics are often misleading.
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
I'm sorry, but (in aggregate) trade deficits and surpluses are not the consequences of free trade agreements, but by household savings rates.
Oh I agree with that. Our trade deficit with the EU does not arise from some nasty EU plot but the incompetence of our governments in failing to appreciate that trade deficits actually matter and need policy adjustments. In this case we needed to curb consumption and increase investment but that was deemed politically unpopular. We also should have been running fiscal surpluses in the years to 2008 to reduce net demand.
What trade deals do is what is on the tin, they facilitate trade flows so any such structural weakness is exacerbated and maximised because other barriers which might have reduced the consequences of our economic incompetence are removed. The SM was a disaster for us, not because the SM is a bad thing, it really should be a good thing, but because it exposed us to the consequences of our own actions.
Good & interesting meeting with @ScottMorrisonMP today! Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have worked together closely with #Australia & held several videoconferences to exchange best practices. We will further deepen our bilateral cooperation through a Strategic Partnership Arrangement in areas such as research, youth exchange and the economy.
It's very notable how many EU countries - Germany, Italy and now Austria - have gone out their way to make it clear how much they value their relationship with Oz.
It's almost like they don't have a common foreign policy.
It seems pretty well over for the Republican party as an ordinary conservative party. Those who oppose Trump are giving up fighting for it, as they see it as beyond redemption.
The difference between Conservatism and right win populism in US today? Is keeping Conservative votes on board simply because you are not a lefty liberal sustainable in long run if you are not yourself a conservative, merely a fellow traveller for personal gain on the beliefs and opinions behind that term?
If you capture control of the administration of enough of the electoral system in order to permanently rig it, perhaps. The Republicans are trying to head down that road.
Now, maybe I'm just an incorrigible optimist, but I'm sceptical that you can "permanently rig it". It's very hard to enact measures that move the needle by more than a percent or two, and you will simultaneously boost your opponents turnout.
Have you seen the John Eastman memo? The plan is just to ignore the election result.
Eastman isn't just some schlock Trump lawyer, he clerked for Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, he taught law in a tenured position.
That he even thought his plan was viable enough to write down and commit to paper shows how degraded the assumption of norms currently is in America.
Daily Express has a “Save Our Boilers” campaign? What the f is that?
If you were wondering if your 18 year old Worcester will get through another winter or two, what would you do right now?
Install a new gas combi boiler
First up, thanks for the answer Big G.
It does raise several questions. It’s a given gas bills are cheaper than electric at this sort of thing? Are you installing new gas combi this autumn rather than electric, because saving the planet and human race comes down those bad countries screwing it up with emissions, ie China, you paying higher heating bathing bills a mere drop in mighty planet saving ocean in comparison?
Or, have you actually calculated through life running costs of new gas boiler? Will the bills always remain cheaper than electric combi? At what point in the boilers life might you find cost flip over? What does no new gas boilers after 2025 do to running costs?
Is it really that straightforward a decision now?
You should use a gas boiler, because it is much more efficient to boil water using gas directly, rather that going:
- gas to - heat (and pressure) to - electricity to - transmission network to - home to - causing electrical resistance which is thrown off as heat in your water system
The gas combi boiler will have a thermal efficiency of c. 90%.
The electrical route will have an efficiency of maybe 50% once you take into account transmission losses, etc. Unless green electricity becomes spectacularly abundant and cheap, it is more efficient to just use natural gas to heat water at home.
Is there a way to do micro CCUS off domestic gas boilers? Into a little tank or something you can "empty" now and again?
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
A lot of US agricultural production is built on the wrongheaded assumption that water is an infinite resource to be pumped out of the ground. I'm looking at you in particular, California, where wells are getting deeper and deeper.
Morning all. Fine and bright today and the Cole's are actually going to have a holiday. Family and friends visits, plus a week in a cottage near the NE coast. First time we've been away from ours since July 2019!
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
I'm sorry, but (in aggregate) trade deficits and surpluses are not the consequences of free trade agreements, but by household savings rates.
Oh I agree with that. Our trade deficit with the EU does not arise from some nasty EU plot but the incompetence of our governments in failing to appreciate that trade deficits actually matter and need policy adjustments. In this case we needed to curb consumption and increase investment but that was deemed politically unpopular. We also should have been running fiscal surpluses in the years to 2008 to reduce net demand.
What trade deals do is what is on the tin, they facilitate trade flows so any such structural weakness is exacerbated and maximised because other barriers which might have reduced the consequences of our economic incompetence are removed. The SM was a disaster for us, not because the SM is a bad thing, it really should be a good thing, but because it exposed us to the consequences of our own actions.
As Red Robbo warned 40 years ago, we needed to invest in British Leyland so it could compete with Ford and VW, not starve it to death by a thousand cuts and a series of parts-bin rustbuckets.
And stop people going on foreign holidays. Invisibles matter too.
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
Yes but we should remember that another significant component of the deficit is repeatedly selling our best companies (and even our best football teams) so their profits flow overseas.
On the subject of our "existing trade surplus with the US" we should note that they think they have a surplus. Economic statistics are often misleading.
The selling of our assets is an inevitable consequence of running a current account deficit. We sell the same amount of assets as the current account deficit every year. The two have to balance. And there are only so many speculative flat developments in London to sell.
Daily Express has a “Save Our Boilers” campaign? What the f is that?
If you were wondering if your 18 year old Worcester will get through another winter or two, what would you do right now?
Install a new gas combi boiler
First up, thanks for the answer Big G.
It does raise several questions. It’s a given gas bills are cheaper than electric at this sort of thing? Are you installing new gas combi this autumn rather than electric, because saving the planet and human race comes down those bad countries screwing it up with emissions, ie China, you paying higher heating bathing bills a mere drop in mighty planet saving ocean in comparison?
Or, have you actually calculated through life running costs of new gas boiler? Will the bills always remain cheaper than electric combi? At what point in the boilers life might you find cost flip over? What does no new gas boilers after 2025 do to running costs?
Is it really that straightforward a decision now?
You should use a gas boiler, because it is much more efficient to boil water using gas directly, rather that going:
- gas to - heat (and pressure) to - electricity to - transmission network to - home to - causing electrical resistance which is thrown off as heat in your water system
The gas combi boiler will have a thermal efficiency of c. 90%.
The electrical route will have an efficiency of maybe 50% once you take into account transmission losses, etc. Unless green electricity becomes spectacularly abundant and cheap, it is more efficient to just use natural gas to heat water at home.
Or switch to a supplier that only uses renewable electricity.
The 2025 date is for new-build homes by the way not the rest of the housing stock.
No new gas in existing homes is a decade away at the least.
Only 1 in 20 trainee GPs plans to do the job full time reports the Telegraph.
I would like to see the context of that stat. What are the other 95% of new GPs planning to do with their time?
As has been previously noted on pb, a lot of medics prefer fixed hours and part-time work. It is not just part-timers, there are also more salaried GPs and junior doctors taking gap years.
ETA medical training needs to be reviewed but understandably, The Saj might have other things on his mind. Nonetheless, there might be quick fixes to be had.
On topic, the domestic political zeitgeist in the USA now is against doing trade deals with anyone, unless overwhelming in their interests, so I wouldn't expect the UK to be treated any differently.
The totally unbalanced UK-US extradition treaty under Blair, and the way they whisk their citizens out of the UK if they commit crimes never to return, dropped the scales from my eyes on the US a long time ago - so I'm not disappointed about it.
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
I'm sorry, but (in aggregate) trade deficits and surpluses are not the consequences of free trade agreements, but by household savings rates.
Oh I agree with that. Our trade deficit with the EU does not arise from some nasty EU plot but the incompetence of our governments in failing to appreciate that trade deficits actually matter and need policy adjustments. In this case we needed to curb consumption and increase investment but that was deemed politically unpopular. We also should have been running fiscal surpluses in the years to 2008 to reduce net demand.
What trade deals do is what is on the tin, they facilitate trade flows so any such structural weakness is exacerbated and maximised because other barriers which might have reduced the consequences of our economic incompetence are removed. The SM was a disaster for us, not because the SM is a bad thing, it really should be a good thing, but because it exposed us to the consequences of our own actions.
As Red Robbo warned 40 years ago, we needed to invest in British Leyland so it could compete with Ford and VW, not starve it to death by a thousand cuts and a series of parts-bin rustbuckets.
And stop people going on foreign holidays. Invisibles matter too.
Red Robbo and other arseholes like that meant that British Leyland could not possibly compete and would inevitably collapse. He wanted the rest of us to subsidise the consequences of his member's restrictive trade practices rather than face the reality that making cars takes fewer and fewer people but those few should be well paid for their efforts.
Daily Express has a “Save Our Boilers” campaign? What the f is that?
If you were wondering if your 18 year old Worcester will get through another winter or two, what would you do right now?
Install a new gas combi boiler
First up, thanks for the answer Big G.
It does raise several questions. It’s a given gas bills are cheaper than electric at this sort of thing? Are you installing new gas combi this autumn rather than electric, because saving the planet and human race comes down those bad countries screwing it up with emissions, ie China, you paying higher heating bathing bills a mere drop in mighty planet saving ocean in comparison?
Or, have you actually calculated through life running costs of new gas boiler? Will the bills always remain cheaper than electric combi? At what point in the boilers life might you find cost flip over? What does no new gas boilers after 2025 do to running costs?
Is it really that straightforward a decision now?
You should use a gas boiler, because it is much more efficient to boil water using gas directly, rather that going:
- gas to - heat (and pressure) to - electricity to - transmission network to - home to - causing electrical resistance which is thrown off as heat in your water system
The gas combi boiler will have a thermal efficiency of c. 90%.
The electrical route will have an efficiency of maybe 50% once you take into account transmission losses, etc. Unless green electricity becomes spectacularly abundant and cheap, it is more efficient to just use natural gas to heat water at home.
Or switch to a supplier that only uses renewable electricity.
The 2025 date is for new-build homes by the way not the rest of the housing stock.
No new gas in existing homes is a decade away at the least.
Hopefully it'll never happen. I've had enough of costs being imposed on everyone to please the insatiable green lobby without any serious scrutiny or accountability.
I have never wanted a Trade Deal with the USA because of the many down sides. It is heartening to see that PB Brexiteers have come round to that view. Surely it is time then to dynamically align with Single Market food and agricultural standards then, so the borders in the Irish Sea and Channel become less obstructive?
Why would we want to reduce our agricultural standards to those of the French or Dutch?
To free up trade. Agricultural and food checks are the biggest part of the Irish Sea border etc.
Of course it would be better to be in the SM so we could push for higher standards all round.
I have never wanted a Trade Deal with the USA because of the many down sides. It is heartening to see that PB Brexiteers have come round to that view. Surely it is time then to dynamically align with Single Market food and agricultural standards then, so the borders in the Irish Sea and Channel become less obstructive?
Those lads who put in a big shift telling everyone that chlorinated chicken was a good thing actually must feel a bit of a tit.
Top tip: get chlorinated chicken at home by taking a regular chicken down the public baths and swimming with it.
Seeing as the issue is cruelty making the chicken do 100m of breast stroke on top of keeping it inhumanely seems particularly cruel. Still the upside is the breast maybe nicer.
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
A lot of US agricultural production is built on the wrongheaded assumption that water is an infinite resource to be pumped out of the ground. I'm looking at you in particular, California, where wells are getting deeper and deeper.
True. Much of their production may not survive global warming. Given their current role in feeding the planet this is not a good thing.
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
I'm sorry, but (in aggregate) trade deficits and surpluses are not the consequences of free trade agreements, but by household savings rates.
Oh I agree with that. Our trade deficit with the EU does not arise from some nasty EU plot but the incompetence of our governments in failing to appreciate that trade deficits actually matter and need policy adjustments. In this case we needed to curb consumption and increase investment but that was deemed politically unpopular. We also should have been running fiscal surpluses in the years to 2008 to reduce net demand.
What trade deals do is what is on the tin, they facilitate trade flows so any such structural weakness is exacerbated and maximised because other barriers which might have reduced the consequences of our economic incompetence are removed. The SM was a disaster for us, not because the SM is a bad thing, it really should be a good thing, but because it exposed us to the consequences of our own actions.
As Red Robbo warned 40 years ago, we needed to invest in British Leyland so it could compete with Ford and VW, not starve it to death by a thousand cuts and a series of parts-bin rustbuckets.
And stop people going on foreign holidays. Invisibles matter too.
Doing my bit on the holidays. This year. Maybe not next, though!
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
Yes but we should remember that another significant component of the deficit is repeatedly selling our best companies (and even our best football teams) so their profits flow overseas.
On the subject of our "existing trade surplus with the US" we should note that they think they have a surplus. Economic statistics are often misleading.
The selling of our assets is an inevitable consequence of running a current account deficit. We sell the same amount of assets as the current account deficit every year. The two have to balance. And there are only so many speculative flat developments in London to sell.
No they don't and if you think about it, "we" is different people. Company owners selling to Americans are not being prodded by Treasury civil servants looking at trade statistics.
Only 1 in 20 trainee GPs plans to do the job full time reports the Telegraph.
I would like to see the context of that stat. What are the other 95% of new GPs planning to do with their time?
As has been previously noted on pb, a lot of medics prefer fixed hours and part-time work. It is not just part-timers, there are also more salaried GPs and junior doctors taking gap years.
ETA medical training needs to be reviewed but understandably, The Saj might have other things on his mind. Nonetheless, there might be quick fixes to be had.
Plus of course some females, in their most fertile years, still expect to take some time off for child-care. And there are quite a lot of female medics these days.
On trainee GPs and not working full-time. The research is by King's Fund.
Here is a relevant section:
"The growth of part-time working in general practice has been widely attributed to feminisation of the workforce.
However, our survey showed that intentions for part-time or portfolio working are common across both sexes. Although a greater proportion of female than male respondents intend to work part-time and fewer intend to work full-time, these differences diminish over progressive career points. Looking ahead to 10 years after qualification, the proportion of male and female respondents intending to work full-time was 13 per cent and 8 per cent respectively while the proportion intending to work part-time was 20 per cent and 26 per cent respectively. By contrast, a greater proportion of male respondents than female respondents reported that they would choose a portfolio career although again these differences diminish over time. 25 per cent of male respondents and 14 per cent of females respondents plan to have a portfolio career 1 year after qualifying, rising to 51 per cent of male respondents and 48 per cent of female respondents 10 years after qualification. The most commonly cited reason for not pursuing full time clinical work was ‘intensity of the working day’ rather than ‘family commitments’ "
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
I'm sorry, but (in aggregate) trade deficits and surpluses are not the consequences of free trade agreements, but by household savings rates.
Oh I agree with that. Our trade deficit with the EU does not arise from some nasty EU plot but the incompetence of our governments in failing to appreciate that trade deficits actually matter and need policy adjustments. In this case we needed to curb consumption and increase investment but that was deemed politically unpopular. We also should have been running fiscal surpluses in the years to 2008 to reduce net demand.
What trade deals do is what is on the tin, they facilitate trade flows so any such structural weakness is exacerbated and maximised because other barriers which might have reduced the consequences of our economic incompetence are removed. The SM was a disaster for us, not because the SM is a bad thing, it really should be a good thing, but because it exposed us to the consequences of our own actions.
As Red Robbo warned 40 years ago, we needed to invest in British Leyland so it could compete with Ford and VW, not starve it to death by a thousand cuts and a series of parts-bin rustbuckets.
And stop people going on foreign holidays. Invisibles matter too.
Red Robbo and other arseholes like that meant that British Leyland could not possibly compete and would inevitably collapse. He wanted the rest of us to subsidise the consequences of his member's restrictive trade practices rather than face the reality that making cars takes fewer and fewer people but those few should be well paid for their efforts.
Funny that foreigners could make cars in Britain using British workers and foreign bosses. Almost as if it was management, combined with government short-sightedness, that was to blame.
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
I'm sorry, but (in aggregate) trade deficits and surpluses are not the consequences of free trade agreements, but by household savings rates.
Oh I agree with that. Our trade deficit with the EU does not arise from some nasty EU plot but the incompetence of our governments in failing to appreciate that trade deficits actually matter and need policy adjustments. In this case we needed to curb consumption and increase investment but that was deemed politically unpopular. We also should have been running fiscal surpluses in the years to 2008 to reduce net demand.
You need to brush up on your national income accounting - basic first year undergraduate macro. Increasing investment INCREASES a current account deficit, rather than reducing it.
Only 1 in 20 trainee GPs plans to do the job full time reports the Telegraph.
I would like to see the context of that stat. What are the other 95% of new GPs planning to do with their time?
As has been previously noted on pb, a lot of medics prefer fixed hours and part-time work. It is not just part-timers, there are also more salaried GPs and junior doctors taking gap years.
ETA medical training needs to be reviewed but understandably, The Saj might have other things on his mind. Nonetheless, there might be quick fixes to be had.
95% of new GPs though!
Key words here are new and 95%. I don't believe that combination and would like to see the context.
I have never wanted a Trade Deal with the USA because of the many down sides. It is heartening to see that PB Brexiteers have come round to that view. Surely it is time then to dynamically align with Single Market food and agricultural standards then, so the borders in the Irish Sea and Channel become less obstructive?
Those lads who put in a big shift telling everyone that chlorinated chicken was a good thing actually must feel a bit of a tit.
Top tip: get chlorinated chicken at home by taking a regular chicken down the public baths and swimming with it.
Seeing as the issue is cruelty making the chicken do 100m of breast stroke on top of keeping it inhumanely seems particularly cruel. Still the upside is the breast maybe nicer.
Probably not. We favour inactive herbivores as meat because exercise makes muscles lean and tough and stringy. Exercising chickens in the swimming pool might be one of the worse ideas on pb.
On trainee GPs and not working full-time. The research is by King's Fund.
Here is a relevant section:
"The growth of part-time working in general practice has been widely attributed to feminisation of the workforce.
However, our survey showed that intentions for part-time or portfolio working are common across both sexes. Although a greater proportion of female than male respondents intend to work part-time and fewer intend to work full-time, these differences diminish over progressive career points. Looking ahead to 10 years after qualification, the proportion of male and female respondents intending to work full-time was 13 per cent and 8 per cent respectively while the proportion intending to work part-time was 20 per cent and 26 per cent respectively. By contrast, a greater proportion of male respondents than female respondents reported that they would choose a portfolio career although again these differences diminish over time. 25 per cent of male respondents and 14 per cent of females respondents plan to have a portfolio career 1 year after qualifying, rising to 51 per cent of male respondents and 48 per cent of female respondents 10 years after qualification. The most commonly cited reason for not pursuing full time clinical work was ‘intensity of the working day’ rather than ‘family commitments’ "
On trainee GPs and not working full-time. The research is by King's Fund.
Here is a relevant section:
"The growth of part-time working in general practice has been widely attributed to feminisation of the workforce.
However, our survey showed that intentions for part-time or portfolio working are common across both sexes. Although a greater proportion of female than male respondents intend to work part-time and fewer intend to work full-time, these differences diminish over progressive career points. Looking ahead to 10 years after qualification, the proportion of male and female respondents intending to work full-time was 13 per cent and 8 per cent respectively while the proportion intending to work part-time was 20 per cent and 26 per cent respectively. By contrast, a greater proportion of male respondents than female respondents reported that they would choose a portfolio career although again these differences diminish over time. 25 per cent of male respondents and 14 per cent of females respondents plan to have a portfolio career 1 year after qualifying, rising to 51 per cent of male respondents and 48 per cent of female respondents 10 years after qualification. The most commonly cited reason for not pursuing full time clinical work was ‘intensity of the working day’ rather than ‘family commitments’ "
(My bolding)
I don't think it's always realised how emotionally demanding 'seeing patients' all day can be. Especially when combined with some at least responsible;lity for managing the practice.
Only 1 in 20 trainee GPs plans to do the job full time reports the Telegraph.
I would like to see the context of that stat. What are the other 95% of new GPs planning to do with their time?
As has been previously noted on pb, a lot of medics prefer fixed hours and part-time work. It is not just part-timers, there are also more salaried GPs and junior doctors taking gap years.
ETA medical training needs to be reviewed but understandably, The Saj might have other things on his mind. Nonetheless, there might be quick fixes to be had.
Is it just because doctors are well-paid but not generally people motivated by money? An investment banker will put up with the pressure and the hours, and go buy a Ferrari. Your average GP might have a variety of things they want to do in the hours not working, but if they can afford to live comfortably on 4 days a week, will do so.
On trainee GPs and not working full-time. The research is by King's Fund.
Here is a relevant section:
"The growth of part-time working in general practice has been widely attributed to feminisation of the workforce.
However, our survey showed that intentions for part-time or portfolio working are common across both sexes. Although a greater proportion of female than male respondents intend to work part-time and fewer intend to work full-time, these differences diminish over progressive career points. Looking ahead to 10 years after qualification, the proportion of male and female respondents intending to work full-time was 13 per cent and 8 per cent respectively while the proportion intending to work part-time was 20 per cent and 26 per cent respectively. By contrast, a greater proportion of male respondents than female respondents reported that they would choose a portfolio career although again these differences diminish over time. 25 per cent of male respondents and 14 per cent of females respondents plan to have a portfolio career 1 year after qualifying, rising to 51 per cent of male respondents and 48 per cent of female respondents 10 years after qualification. The most commonly cited reason for not pursuing full time clinical work was ‘intensity of the working day’ rather than ‘family commitments’ "
(My bolding)
The average GP sees 57% of patients the same day. This works out as 20-25 face to face contacts, and nearly as many phone consultations. Numbers from this thread.
Red Robbo and other arseholes like that meant that British Leyland could not possibly compete and would inevitably collapse. He wanted the rest of us to subsidise the consequences of his member's restrictive trade practices rather than face the reality that making cars takes fewer and fewer people but those few should be well paid for their efforts.
RR didn't destroy the Plughole of Despair single handled. He had a lot of help from the company's senior management who conspicuously failed to integrate Cowley and Longbridge into a single business over a period of 30 years. An unwritten corporate philosophy of "Fuck it, that'll do." at all levels didn't help either.
All mass produced cars of that era were badly built (possible exceptions: VW and the Japanese) and prone to rust (no exceptions) but the structural inefficiencies at BL made their badly built, rust prone cars more expensive to produce than everyone elses.
In hindsight they should have abandoned the twin product strategies of Conventional Ford Fighters (Morris) and Innovators (Austin) at least a decade before the rusty penny dropped.
The UK has done a couple of things outstandingly in COVID (and a lot very much less well) - but the Recovery trials, genomic sequencing and the quantity and quality of data have been genuinely "world beating". The author of the chart is an epidemiologist at PHE and well worth following.
Red Robbo and other arseholes like that meant that British Leyland could not possibly compete and would inevitably collapse. He wanted the rest of us to subsidise the consequences of his member's restrictive trade practices rather than face the reality that making cars takes fewer and fewer people but those few should be well paid for their efforts.
RR didn't destroy the Plughole of Despair single handled. He had a lot of help from the company's senior management who conspicuously failed to integrate Cowley and Longbridge into a single business over a period of 30 years. An unwritten corporate philosophy of "Fuck it, that'll do." at all levels didn't help either.
All mass produced cars of that era were badly built (possible exceptions: VW and the Japanese) and prone to rust (no exceptions) but the structural inefficiencies at BL made their badly built, rust prone cars more expensive to produce than everyone elses.
In hindsight they should have abandoned the twin product strategies of Conventional Ford Fighters (Morris) and Innovators (Austin) at least a decade before the rusty penny dropped.
Doing too many things on the cheap killed them. Reusing doors or engines that didn’t fit killing designs. Building minis at a loss didn’t help.
Only 1 in 20 trainee GPs plans to do the job full time reports the Telegraph.
I would like to see the context of that stat. What are the other 95% of new GPs planning to do with their time?
As has been previously noted on pb, a lot of medics prefer fixed hours and part-time work. It is not just part-timers, there are also more salaried GPs and junior doctors taking gap years.
ETA medical training needs to be reviewed but understandably, The Saj might have other things on his mind. Nonetheless, there might be quick fixes to be had.
Is it just because doctors are well-paid but not generally people motivated by money? An investment banker will put up with the pressure and the hours, and go buy a Ferrari. Your average GP might have a variety of things they want to do in the hours not working, but if they can afford to live comfortably on 4 days a week, will do so.
I've heard it said that young medics plan to pay off the mortgage and then "just get out of there".
Medicine as a vocation seems to have fallen by the wayside.
It seems pretty well over for the Republican party as an ordinary conservative party. Those who oppose Trump are giving up fighting for it, as they see it as beyond redemption.
The difference between Conservatism and right win populism in US today? Is keeping Conservative votes on board simply because you are not a lefty liberal sustainable in long run if you are not yourself a conservative, merely a fellow traveller for personal gain on the beliefs and opinions behind that term?
If you capture control of the administration of enough of the electoral system in order to permanently rig it, perhaps. The Republicans are trying to head down that road.
Now, maybe I'm just an incorrigible optimist, but I'm sceptical that you can "permanently rig it". It's very hard to enact measures that move the needle by more than a percent or two, and you will simultaneously boost your opponents turnout.
I didn't say they'd succeed - but their means encompass rather more than moving the needle by the odd %. Wholesale rejection of results which don't suit them is also a possibility, and several states have already taken measures to make that a bit more likely.
On trainee GPs and not working full-time. The research is by King's Fund.
Here is a relevant section:
"The growth of part-time working in general practice has been widely attributed to feminisation of the workforce.
However, our survey showed that intentions for part-time or portfolio working are common across both sexes. Although a greater proportion of female than male respondents intend to work part-time and fewer intend to work full-time, these differences diminish over progressive career points. Looking ahead to 10 years after qualification, the proportion of male and female respondents intending to work full-time was 13 per cent and 8 per cent respectively while the proportion intending to work part-time was 20 per cent and 26 per cent respectively. By contrast, a greater proportion of male respondents than female respondents reported that they would choose a portfolio career although again these differences diminish over time. 25 per cent of male respondents and 14 per cent of females respondents plan to have a portfolio career 1 year after qualifying, rising to 51 per cent of male respondents and 48 per cent of female respondents 10 years after qualification. The most commonly cited reason for not pursuing full time clinical work was ‘intensity of the working day’ rather than ‘family commitments’ "
(My bolding)
I don't think it's always realised how emotionally demanding 'seeing patients' all day can be. Especially when combined with some at least responsible;lity for managing the practice.
Yep. The King's Fund note that a lot of the part time working is to free up one or two days a week to manage the local commissioning group and do other admin and so on.
We are not training anywhere near enough medics if they plan to only work part-time.
Red Robbo and other arseholes like that meant that British Leyland could not possibly compete and would inevitably collapse. He wanted the rest of us to subsidise the consequences of his member's restrictive trade practices rather than face the reality that making cars takes fewer and fewer people but those few should be well paid for their efforts.
RR didn't destroy the Plughole of Despair single handled. He had a lot of help from the company's senior management who conspicuously failed to integrate Cowley and Longbridge into a single business over a period of 30 years. An unwritten corporate philosophy of "Fuck it, that'll do." at all levels didn't help either.
All mass produced cars of that era were badly built (possible exceptions: VW and the Japanese) and prone to rust (no exceptions) but the structural inefficiencies at BL made their badly built, rust prone cars more expensive to produce than everyone elses.
In hindsight they should have abandoned the twin product strategies of Conventional Ford Fighters (Morris) and Innovators (Austin) at least a decade before the rusty penny dropped.
As a driver of a 13 year old Fiat 500, it is impressive how good modern cars are. No rust at all despite never being garaged. It needed a recon gearbox at 80 000 miles but no other major work and looks good for a couple of years yet.
The UK has done a couple of things outstandingly in COVID (and a lot very much less well) - but the Recovery trials, genomic sequencing and the quantity and quality of data have been genuinely "world beating". The author of the chart is an epidemiologist at PHE and well worth following.
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
Yes but we should remember that another significant component of the deficit is repeatedly selling our best companies (and even our best football teams) so their profits flow overseas.
On the subject of our "existing trade surplus with the US" we should note that they think they have a surplus. Economic statistics are often misleading.
The selling of our assets is an inevitable consequence of running a current account deficit. We sell the same amount of assets as the current account deficit every year. The two have to balance. And there are only so many speculative flat developments in London to sell.
No they don't and if you think about it, "we" is different people. Company owners selling to Americans are not being prodded by Treasury civil servants looking at trade statistics.
No, but it all balances in the round. The trade statistics and the sales of assets both affect the exchange rate. If the one happened without the other then the exchange rate would surge in the corresponding direction - which would have a counter-effect on the other.
Lose the trade deficit and sterling goes up and British assets become more much more expensive to buy.
Morning all! On topic, meh. The trade deal being trumpeted by pro-Brexit Tories was never going to happen as we told them at the time. The US Congress will not vote through preferential trade terms to the GB after we had threatened the peace in Ireland. So Biden isn't even going to try, so the ministerial arguments in favour of chlorinated chicken were a waste of time.
I do chuckle a bit at the idea of us joining NAFTA. Its like a dumped boyfriend going out desperate to find anyone who will shag them.
It seems pretty well over for the Republican party as an ordinary conservative party. Those who oppose Trump are giving up fighting for it, as they see it as beyond redemption.
The difference between Conservatism and right win populism in US today? Is keeping Conservative votes on board simply because you are not a lefty liberal sustainable in long run if you are not yourself a conservative, merely a fellow traveller for personal gain on the beliefs and opinions behind that term?
If you capture control of the administration of enough of the electoral system in order to permanently rig it, perhaps. The Republicans are trying to head down that road.
Now, maybe I'm just an incorrigible optimist, but I'm sceptical that you can "permanently rig it". It's very hard to enact measures that move the needle by more than a percent or two, and you will simultaneously boost your opponents turnout.
I didn't say they'd succeed - but their means encompass rather more than moving the needle by the odd %. Wholesale rejection of results which don't suit them is also a possibility, and several states have already taken measures to make that a bit more likely.
Trumps plan for Pence on Jan 6th to declare him winner is quite an eyeopener:
On trainee GPs and not working full-time. The research is by King's Fund.
Here is a relevant section:
"The growth of part-time working in general practice has been widely attributed to feminisation of the workforce.
However, our survey showed that intentions for part-time or portfolio working are common across both sexes. Although a greater proportion of female than male respondents intend to work part-time and fewer intend to work full-time, these differences diminish over progressive career points. Looking ahead to 10 years after qualification, the proportion of male and female respondents intending to work full-time was 13 per cent and 8 per cent respectively while the proportion intending to work part-time was 20 per cent and 26 per cent respectively. By contrast, a greater proportion of male respondents than female respondents reported that they would choose a portfolio career although again these differences diminish over time. 25 per cent of male respondents and 14 per cent of females respondents plan to have a portfolio career 1 year after qualifying, rising to 51 per cent of male respondents and 48 per cent of female respondents 10 years after qualification. The most commonly cited reason for not pursuing full time clinical work was ‘intensity of the working day’ rather than ‘family commitments’ "
(My bolding)
I don't think it's always realised how emotionally demanding 'seeing patients' all day can be. Especially when combined with some at least responsible;lity for managing the practice.
Yep. The King's Fund note that a lot of the part time working is to free up one or two days a week to manage the local commissioning group and do other admin and so on.
We are not training anywhere near enough medics if they plan to only work part-time.
I would suggest that Primary Care Trusts did a much better job than CCG's; full time managers rather than part-time GP's running them.
Morning all! On topic, meh. The trade deal being trumpeted by pro-Brexit Tories was never going to happen as we told them at the time. The US Congress will not vote through preferential trade terms to the GB after we had threatened the peace in Ireland. So Biden isn't even going to try, so the ministerial arguments in favour of chlorinated chicken were a waste of time.
I do chuckle a bit at the idea of us joining NAFTA. Its like a dumped boyfriend going out desperate to find anyone who will shag them.
Yep the idea that we will be allowed to join an agreement all 3 parties wish to renegotiate is definitely one for the birds.
Only 1 in 20 trainee GPs plans to do the job full time reports the Telegraph.
I would like to see the context of that stat. What are the other 95% of new GPs planning to do with their time?
As has been previously noted on pb, a lot of medics prefer fixed hours and part-time work. It is not just part-timers, there are also more salaried GPs and junior doctors taking gap years.
ETA medical training needs to be reviewed but understandably, The Saj might have other things on his mind. Nonetheless, there might be quick fixes to be had.
Is it just because doctors are well-paid but not generally people motivated by money? An investment banker will put up with the pressure and the hours, and go buy a Ferrari. Your average GP might have a variety of things they want to do in the hours not working, but if they can afford to live comfortably on 4 days a week, will do so.
Almost certainly not. Consultants might be on £100,000 but junior hospital doctors start at less than the national average salary and work up slowly. There is a lot of stress, long hours (at ungenerous overtime rates) and bankers do not need to deal with suffering and death on a regular basis. Then medical training is in some respects badly organised, and it is possible our medical schools recruit the wrong people to start with (as well as too few of them).
Only 1 in 20 trainee GPs plans to do the job full time reports the Telegraph.
I would like to see the context of that stat. What are the other 95% of new GPs planning to do with their time?
As has been previously noted on pb, a lot of medics prefer fixed hours and part-time work. It is not just part-timers, there are also more salaried GPs and junior doctors taking gap years.
ETA medical training needs to be reviewed but understandably, The Saj might have other things on his mind. Nonetheless, there might be quick fixes to be had.
95% of new GPs though!
Key words here are new and 95%. I don't believe that combination and would like to see the context.
PS I am married to a Doctor.
Seems like it may be bollx. The Telegraph article links to another piece they wrote which links to the King's Fund research I mentioned earlier. I can't find any such number in the report.
This from the report seems closest:
"We surveyed GPs in training to better understand their intentions for future practice. We asked respondents to state their working intentions for one year, five years and 10 years after qualification. Of the 318 trainees who responded, 31 per cent intended to do full-time clinical work one year after qualification, falling to 11 per cent five years after qualification and just 10 per cent 10 years after qualification"
On trainee GPs and not working full-time. The research is by King's Fund.
Here is a relevant section:
"The growth of part-time working in general practice has been widely attributed to feminisation of the workforce.
However, our survey showed that intentions for part-time or portfolio working are common across both sexes. Although a greater proportion of female than male respondents intend to work part-time and fewer intend to work full-time, these differences diminish over progressive career points. Looking ahead to 10 years after qualification, the proportion of male and female respondents intending to work full-time was 13 per cent and 8 per cent respectively while the proportion intending to work part-time was 20 per cent and 26 per cent respectively. By contrast, a greater proportion of male respondents than female respondents reported that they would choose a portfolio career although again these differences diminish over time. 25 per cent of male respondents and 14 per cent of females respondents plan to have a portfolio career 1 year after qualifying, rising to 51 per cent of male respondents and 48 per cent of female respondents 10 years after qualification. The most commonly cited reason for not pursuing full time clinical work was ‘intensity of the working day’ rather than ‘family commitments’ "
(My bolding)
I don't think it's always realised how emotionally demanding 'seeing patients' all day can be. Especially when combined with some at least responsible;lity for managing the practice.
Yep. The King's Fund note that a lot of the part time working is to free up one or two days a week to manage the local commissioning group and do other admin and so on.
We are not training anywhere near enough medics if they plan to only work part-time.
Any serious plan to tackle the backlogs in the NHS and increase capacity needs improved postgraduate training* at its core. Not glamorous enough to appear in fancy dress for though, so it won't happen.
I have never wanted a Trade Deal with the USA because of the many down sides. It is heartening to see that PB Brexiteers have come round to that view. Surely it is time then to dynamically align with Single Market food and agricultural standards then, so the borders in the Irish Sea and Channel become less obstructive?
Those lads who put in a big shift telling everyone that chlorinated chicken was a good thing actually must feel a bit of a tit.
Chlorinated chicken has had a spectacular job done on it in terms of negative pr. Most people have no clue about what really goes on in food production. Take a look at almost any ingredients list. It won’t be simple whole foods. You can certainly criticise US food methods, but should be aware of the whole process too.
Off-topic, I can't help but compare and contrast my party's conference last week and the growing shitshow that is the labour conference. LibDems are feeling energised, happy, forward looking. Labour are fighting the Corbyn War round 17.
As I said at the time, Starmer should have booted Corbyn the instant the anti-semitism report came out, and then booted anyone who came out supporting the racist old wazzock. Cut off the gangrenous limb, save the patient.
"Oh no" I was told, "Labour can't have a big factional battle". Are they not having it now? And again through the winter? And next year? The trot loons are leaving in small numbers, being expelled in tiny numbers, but are still embedded in the party and successfully hijacking the entire agenda.
Then we have the other problem. Yesterday all the loony union heads popped up. We had months of coverage of the Corbynite war in Unite. And now people like Manuel Cortez foaming on. I can't be the only one who looks at the union leaders and feels repelled by them and anyone associated with them. I support trade unions who represent and empower their members, but the union movement is like a stone chained to Labour dragging it to the sea bed.
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
I'm sorry, but (in aggregate) trade deficits and surpluses are not the consequences of free trade agreements, but by household savings rates.
Oh I agree with that. Our trade deficit with the EU does not arise from some nasty EU plot but the incompetence of our governments in failing to appreciate that trade deficits actually matter and need policy adjustments. In this case we needed to curb consumption and increase investment but that was deemed politically unpopular. We also should have been running fiscal surpluses in the years to 2008 to reduce net demand.
You need to brush up on your national income accounting - basic first year undergraduate macro. Increasing investment INCREASES a current account deficit, rather than reducing it.
Ummm no. What David said was right, a current account deficit gets paid for by selling assets (international 'investment'). That's literally slide 1.1 on your link.
A country which runs a current account deficit is generally buying from the rest of the world more than what it is selling to the rest of the world. In order to finance this overspending, the country must borrow from the rest of the world by selling more assets to foreigners than domestic citizens buy foreign assets. In this case, the country is a net debtor to the rest of the world. Symmetrically, a country running a current account surplus is a net creditor to the rest of the world.
Our massive current account deficit since 1998 (I wonder what happened around then?) has made us a net debtor to the world.
EDIT: Oh too early in the morning, if you meant domestic investment then that's complicated. Yes initially investment reduces our savings, but it can produce savings in the long-term.
I have never wanted a Trade Deal with the USA because of the many down sides. It is heartening to see that PB Brexiteers have come round to that view. Surely it is time then to dynamically align with Single Market food and agricultural standards then, so the borders in the Irish Sea and Channel become less obstructive?
Those lads who put in a big shift telling everyone that chlorinated chicken was a good thing actually must feel a bit of a tit.
Chlorinated chicken has had a spectacular job done on it in terms of negative pr. Most people have no clue about what really goes on in food production. Take a look at almost any ingredients list. It won’t be simple whole foods. You can certainly criticise US food methods, but should be aware of the whole process too.
It is not the chlorine that is the problem, it is the feacal contamination in American slaughterhouses. Chlorination is an inadequate solution to remedy that though.
Red Robbo and other arseholes like that meant that British Leyland could not possibly compete and would inevitably collapse. He wanted the rest of us to subsidise the consequences of his member's restrictive trade practices rather than face the reality that making cars takes fewer and fewer people but those few should be well paid for their efforts.
RR didn't destroy the Plughole of Despair single handled. He had a lot of help from the company's senior management who conspicuously failed to integrate Cowley and Longbridge into a single business over a period of 30 years. An unwritten corporate philosophy of "Fuck it, that'll do." at all levels didn't help either.
All mass produced cars of that era were badly built (possible exceptions: VW and the Japanese) and prone to rust (no exceptions) but the structural inefficiencies at BL made their badly built, rust prone cars more expensive to produce than everyone elses.
In hindsight they should have abandoned the twin product strategies of Conventional Ford Fighters (Morris) and Innovators (Austin) at least a decade before the rusty penny dropped.
As a driver of a 13 year old Fiat 500, it is impressive how good modern cars are. No rust at all despite never being garaged. It needed a recon gearbox at 80 000 miles but no other major work and looks good for a couple of years yet.
Yes, I remember our Talbot Horizon started to exhibit rust inside 18 months.
We still have to do MoTs after 3 years to this day, even though it's probably totally unnecessary and 5 years would easily do.
Interesting to read about the NHS deal with Kenya overnight, to being nurses to the UK, with expertise and training going the other way.
I’d previously suggested something similar, but with Manila or Mumbai as the partner, rather than Nairobi. Hopefully a small part of the way towards addressing the shortage of healthcare professionals.
Off-topic, I can't help but compare and contrast my party's conference last week and the growing shitshow that is the labour conference. LibDems are feeling energised, happy, forward looking. Labour are fighting the Corbyn War round 17.
As I said at the time, Starmer should have booted Corbyn the instant the anti-semitism report came out, and then booted anyone who came out supporting the racist old wazzock. Cut off the gangrenous limb, save the patient.
"Oh no" I was told, "Labour can't have a big factional battle". Are they not having it now? And again through the winter? And next year? The trot loons are leaving in small numbers, being expelled in tiny numbers, but are still embedded in the party and successfully hijacking the entire agenda.
Then we have the other problem. Yesterday all the loony union heads popped up. We had months of coverage of the Corbynite war in Unite. And now people like Manuel Cortez foaming on. I can't be the only one who looks at the union leaders and feels repelled by them and anyone associated with them. I support trade unions who represent and empower their members, but the union movement is like a stone chained to Labour dragging it to the sea bed.
Did the Lib Dems have a conference? Entirely missed that.
Off-topic, I can't help but compare and contrast my party's conference last week and the growing shitshow that is the labour conference. LibDems are feeling energised, happy, forward looking. Labour are fighting the Corbyn War round 17.
As I said at the time, Starmer should have booted Corbyn the instant the anti-semitism report came out, and then booted anyone who came out supporting the racist old wazzock. Cut off the gangrenous limb, save the patient.
"Oh no" I was told, "Labour can't have a big factional battle". Are they not having it now? And again through the winter? And next year? The trot loons are leaving in small numbers, being expelled in tiny numbers, but are still embedded in the party and successfully hijacking the entire agenda.
Then we have the other problem. Yesterday all the loony union heads popped up. We had months of coverage of the Corbynite war in Unite. And now people like Manuel Cortez foaming on. I can't be the only one who looks at the union leaders and feels repelled by them and anyone associated with them. I support trade unions who represent and empower their members, but the union movement is like a stone chained to Labour dragging it to the sea bed.
Oh do keep up. Keir Starmer aims to reduce members' say and give more power to the unions and MPs. This will reduce the risk of another Corbyn. It also reverses Ed Miliband's reforms which gave more power to members in order to reduce the unions' grip on the party. Labour, always fighting each other, always fighting the last war.
Off-topic, I can't help but compare and contrast my party's conference last week and the growing shitshow that is the labour conference. LibDems are feeling energised, happy, forward looking. Labour are fighting the Corbyn War round 17.
As I said at the time, Starmer should have booted Corbyn the instant the anti-semitism report came out, and then booted anyone who came out supporting the racist old wazzock. Cut off the gangrenous limb, save the patient.
"Oh no" I was told, "Labour can't have a big factional battle". Are they not having it now? And again through the winter? And next year? The trot loons are leaving in small numbers, being expelled in tiny numbers, but are still embedded in the party and successfully hijacking the entire agenda.
Then we have the other problem. Yesterday all the loony union heads popped up. We had months of coverage of the Corbynite war in Unite. And now people like Manuel Cortez foaming on. I can't be the only one who looks at the union leaders and feels repelled by them and anyone associated with them. I support trade unions who represent and empower their members, but the union movement is like a stone chained to Labour dragging it to the sea bed.
Changing back to the Electoral College is going to be quite a fight (it seems the same package also contains elements on candidate selection too).
After that, it may be possible for Starmer to safely step down having done the dirty work cleaning the stables.
Mr. Pioneers, perhaps. But this could also be an opportunity for Starmer. If he can see them off and stamp his authority on the party then this will be a loud and clear signal that the far left do not hold the whip hand in Labour any more.
If he fails, then the party will be riven with factional infighting and, worse politically, be seen to be riven with factional infighting.
On topic, the domestic political zeitgeist in the USA now is against doing trade deals with anyone, unless overwhelming in their interests, so I wouldn't expect the UK to be treated any differently.
The totally unbalanced UK-US extradition treaty under Blair, and the way they whisk their citizens out of the UK if they commit crimes never to return, dropped the scales from my eyes on the US a long time ago - so I'm not disappointed about it.
There was never going to be a US trade deal, or not an all encompassing one. The agriculture stuff a total non-starter for British public opinion, the press, Radio 4, and all political parties.
Off-topic, I can't help but compare and contrast my party's conference last week and the growing shitshow that is the labour conference. LibDems are feeling energised, happy, forward looking. Labour are fighting the Corbyn War round 17.
As I said at the time, Starmer should have booted Corbyn the instant the anti-semitism report came out, and then booted anyone who came out supporting the racist old wazzock. Cut off the gangrenous limb, save the patient.
"Oh no" I was told, "Labour can't have a big factional battle". Are they not having it now? And again through the winter? And next year? The trot loons are leaving in small numbers, being expelled in tiny numbers, but are still embedded in the party and successfully hijacking the entire agenda.
Then we have the other problem. Yesterday all the loony union heads popped up. We had months of coverage of the Corbynite war in Unite. And now people like Manuel Cortez foaming on. I can't be the only one who looks at the union leaders and feels repelled by them and anyone associated with them. I support trade unions who represent and empower their members, but the union movement is like a stone chained to Labour dragging it to the sea bed.
Many union leaders have always been like that, IMO. Snouts at the trough being the least of their problems.
If I were a union leader, I would break all official ties with Labour and acknowledge a good number of my members belong, or vote for, other parties, and blindly supporting Labour might turn potential members off.
Every couple of years or so, I would poll the membership and ask them which party they would like any political levy to go to. If (say) 65% say Labour, 20% Conservative, 15% a.n.other, then the money is split accordingly.
It is more democratic, and importantly, gets you a hearing in all the parties, not just Labour. I reckon the results of such a membership poll in most unions might be surprising.
Off-topic, I can't help but compare and contrast my party's conference last week and the growing shitshow that is the labour conference. LibDems are feeling energised, happy, forward looking. Labour are fighting the Corbyn War round 17.
As I said at the time, Starmer should have booted Corbyn the instant the anti-semitism report came out, and then booted anyone who came out supporting the racist old wazzock. Cut off the gangrenous limb, save the patient.
"Oh no" I was told, "Labour can't have a big factional battle". Are they not having it now? And again through the winter? And next year? The trot loons are leaving in small numbers, being expelled in tiny numbers, but are still embedded in the party and successfully hijacking the entire agenda.
Then we have the other problem. Yesterday all the loony union heads popped up. We had months of coverage of the Corbynite war in Unite. And now people like Manuel Cortez foaming on. I can't be the only one who looks at the union leaders and feels repelled by them and anyone associated with them. I support trade unions who represent and empower their members, but the union movement is like a stone chained to Labour dragging it to the sea bed.
Did the Lib Dems have a conference? Entirely missed that.
So Remainers who were castigating Boris for even contemplating a trade deal with a USA led by Trump are now castigating Boris for not getting a trade deal with a USA led by Biden tomorrow. In reality Boris is taking his time to ensure the right deal for the UK and whoever is in power any deal would take an age to get through Congress even with White House support
Actually the conversation has moved on to joining the US - Mexico - Canada deal which is headlining in the Times and Express tomorrow
LOL, there goes the great sovereignty and Global Britain. Junior junior member of a union again.
Off-topic, I can't help but compare and contrast my party's conference last week and the growing shitshow that is the labour conference. LibDems are feeling energised, happy, forward looking. Labour are fighting the Corbyn War round 17.
As I said at the time, Starmer should have booted Corbyn the instant the anti-semitism report came out, and then booted anyone who came out supporting the racist old wazzock. Cut off the gangrenous limb, save the patient.
"Oh no" I was told, "Labour can't have a big factional battle". Are they not having it now? And again through the winter? And next year? The trot loons are leaving in small numbers, being expelled in tiny numbers, but are still embedded in the party and successfully hijacking the entire agenda.
Then we have the other problem. Yesterday all the loony union heads popped up. We had months of coverage of the Corbynite war in Unite. And now people like Manuel Cortez foaming on. I can't be the only one who looks at the union leaders and feels repelled by them and anyone associated with them. I support trade unions who represent and empower their members, but the union movement is like a stone chained to Labour dragging it to the sea bed.
Many union leaders have always been like that, IMO. Snouts at the trough being the least of their problems.
If I were a union leader, I would break all official ties with Labour and acknowledge a good number of my members belong, or vote for, other parties, and blindly supporting Labour might turn potential members off.
Every couple of years or so, I would poll the membership and ask them which party they would like any political levy to go to. If (say) 65% say Labour, 20% Conservative, 15% a.n.other, then the money is split accordingly.
It is more democratic, and importantly, gets you a hearing in all the parties, not just Labour. I reckon the results of such a membership poll in most unions might be surprising.
How about just abolishing the political levy altogether and using any revenues raised to fund the union doing activities for its membership rather than being siphoned off into political parties?
Off-topic, I can't help but compare and contrast my party's conference last week and the growing shitshow that is the labour conference. LibDems are feeling energised, happy, forward looking. Labour are fighting the Corbyn War round 17.
As I said at the time, Starmer should have booted Corbyn the instant the anti-semitism report came out, and then booted anyone who came out supporting the racist old wazzock. Cut off the gangrenous limb, save the patient.
"Oh no" I was told, "Labour can't have a big factional battle". Are they not having it now? And again through the winter? And next year? The trot loons are leaving in small numbers, being expelled in tiny numbers, but are still embedded in the party and successfully hijacking the entire agenda.
Then we have the other problem. Yesterday all the loony union heads popped up. We had months of coverage of the Corbynite war in Unite. And now people like Manuel Cortez foaming on. I can't be the only one who looks at the union leaders and feels repelled by them and anyone associated with them. I support trade unions who represent and empower their members, but the union movement is like a stone chained to Labour dragging it to the sea bed.
Did the Lib Dems have a conference? Entirely missed that.
Daily Express has a “Save Our Boilers” campaign? What the f is that?
If you were wondering if your 18 year old Worcester will get through another winter or two, what would you do right now?
Install a new gas combi boiler
First up, thanks for the answer Big G.
It does raise several questions. It’s a given gas bills are cheaper than electric at this sort of thing? Are you installing new gas combi this autumn rather than electric, because saving the planet and human race comes down those bad countries screwing it up with emissions, ie China, you paying higher heating bathing bills a mere drop in mighty planet saving ocean in comparison?
Or, have you actually calculated through life running costs of new gas boiler? Will the bills always remain cheaper than electric combi? At what point in the boilers life might you find cost flip over? What does no new gas boilers after 2025 do to running costs?
Is it really that straightforward a decision now?
Hard to see electric being cheaper than gas for a very very long time if ever. Last I saw the electric boilers were 10x gas costs , so it is a no brainer at present.
Off-topic, I can't help but compare and contrast my party's conference last week and the growing shitshow that is the labour conference. LibDems are feeling energised, happy, forward looking. Labour are fighting the Corbyn War round 17.
As I said at the time, Starmer should have booted Corbyn the instant the anti-semitism report came out, and then booted anyone who came out supporting the racist old wazzock. Cut off the gangrenous limb, save the patient.
"Oh no" I was told, "Labour can't have a big factional battle". Are they not having it now? And again through the winter? And next year? The trot loons are leaving in small numbers, being expelled in tiny numbers, but are still embedded in the party and successfully hijacking the entire agenda.
Then we have the other problem. Yesterday all the loony union heads popped up. We had months of coverage of the Corbynite war in Unite. And now people like Manuel Cortez foaming on. I can't be the only one who looks at the union leaders and feels repelled by them and anyone associated with them. I support trade unions who represent and empower their members, but the union movement is like a stone chained to Labour dragging it to the sea bed.
Did the Lib Dems have a conference? Entirely missed that.
1. It was online 2. We didn't have any mega rows
Any sign of a pulse? Perhaps an argument on something might be a good idea,
At least I'll never hear about godsdamned chlorinated chicken ever again.
+1 - there are very few upsides to a trade deal with the US and am awful lot of downsides
One of the downsides of no US deal is we have ripped up a local trade deal that was great for British business, and Global Britain and Brexit is built on the promise we can make up anything lost with new agreements elsewhere?
I get so fed up of this. That "great" local trade deal created a trade deficit of £80bn a year which, over 20 years, transformed us from a net creditor nation (that is with a net income flow into this country from foreign investment) into a significantly indebted country (where there is a significant and increasing net outflow of income generated here to other countries).
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
A trade deal with the US was always of dubious value because a red line for the Americans is access for their industrial agricultural producers, who British farmers simply can't compete with in the high volume, low quality segment (which is most of it). But the value of a trade deal doesn't lie in its effect on the bilateral trade surplus (otherwise they could never happen). The trade and current account balances reflect the decisions of millions of consumers and firms. As a country we would need to save more and consume and invest less if we wanted a current account surplus. But with floating exchange rates it's not something I lose sleep about, personally. I would rather we had a "better" trade balance, because it would reflect a more balanced economy with a better mix of jobs, but in the long list of ways that this country falls short of my hopes and expectations this wouldn't even be in the top 10.
Off-topic, I can't help but compare and contrast my party's conference last week and the growing shitshow that is the labour conference. LibDems are feeling energised, happy, forward looking. Labour are fighting the Corbyn War round 17.
As I said at the time, Starmer should have booted Corbyn the instant the anti-semitism report came out, and then booted anyone who came out supporting the racist old wazzock. Cut off the gangrenous limb, save the patient.
"Oh no" I was told, "Labour can't have a big factional battle". Are they not having it now? And again through the winter? And next year? The trot loons are leaving in small numbers, being expelled in tiny numbers, but are still embedded in the party and successfully hijacking the entire agenda.
Then we have the other problem. Yesterday all the loony union heads popped up. We had months of coverage of the Corbynite war in Unite. And now people like Manuel Cortez foaming on. I can't be the only one who looks at the union leaders and feels repelled by them and anyone associated with them. I support trade unions who represent and empower their members, but the union movement is like a stone chained to Labour dragging it to the sea bed.
Many union leaders have always been like that, IMO. Snouts at the trough being the least of their problems.
If I were a union leader, I would break all official ties with Labour and acknowledge a good number of my members belong, or vote for, other parties, and blindly supporting Labour might turn potential members off.
Every couple of years or so, I would poll the membership and ask them which party they would like any political levy to go to. If (say) 65% say Labour, 20% Conservative, 15% a.n.other, then the money is split accordingly.
It is more democratic, and importantly, gets you a hearing in all the parties, not just Labour. I reckon the results of such a membership poll in most unions might be surprising.
The problem is that on the electoral system for leader Laura Pillock and Zarah Sultana are right. The Electoral College is not remotely democratic and its a somewhat desperate fudge to see Labour moderates shouting at the trots "we're bringing Tony Benn's system back".
Comments
- gas
to
- heat (and pressure)
to
- electricity
to
- transmission network
to
- home
to
- causing electrical resistance which is thrown off as heat in your water system
The gas combi boiler will have a thermal efficiency of c. 90%.
The electrical route will have an efficiency of maybe 50% once you take into account transmission losses, etc. Unless green electricity becomes spectacularly abundant and cheap, it is more efficient to just use natural gas to heat water at home.
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Because the Liberals are just a handful of seats short of a majority, Mr. Trudeau will only need to rely on one of the three main opposition parties to pass any government bill. In the last Parliament, the Liberals often turned to the NDP for key confidence votes. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet are Mr. Trudeau’s most natural allies in the new minority Parliament, although the Conservatives could also support some bills.
At a news conference in Vancouver on Tuesday, Mr. Singh said he hoped to work with the Liberals on shared areas of interest, including child care and pharmacare. The NDP Leader said he didn’t discuss policy details with Mr. Trudeau during their call on election night. In the last days of the campaign, Mr. Singh said a wealth tax would be his priority issue in a minority government. When asked about that comment Tuesday, he said the cost of the pandemic should be offset by new taxes on high-wealth individuals and corporations."
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeaus-re-elected-minority-government-to-face-demands-from-bloc-ndp/
The Republicans are trying to head down that road.
https://mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/brazilian-health-minister-seen-shaking-25041348<
All of our children and their children will have a lower standard of living as a result.
The possible trade deal with the US has to be subject to the same analysis. Would it damage our existing trade surplus with the US to our detriment? Would it expose significant parts of our own industry to competition they cannot cope with? In the case of the US this would largely be agricultural items where the mass scale of US production makes it pretty much impossible for UK producers to compete. So they get wiped out and a lot of our countryside returns to wild land. Do we really want that? Or do we want to keep what we have, which is a series of mini deals covering areas like finance where we are on a level playing field?
They might agree to use it to support an EU position with that they were happy with most of the time, though.
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1440560389633101825?s=21
Labour setting the nations pulse racing ?
http://news.sky.com/story/labour-party-facing-civil-war-over-sir-keir-starmers-leadership-vote-reforms-12413819
On the subject of our "existing trade surplus with the US" we should note that they think they have a surplus. Economic statistics are often misleading.
What trade deals do is what is on the tin, they facilitate trade flows so any such structural weakness is exacerbated and maximised because other barriers which might have reduced the consequences of our economic incompetence are removed. The SM was a disaster for us, not because the SM is a bad thing, it really should be a good thing, but because it exposed us to the consequences of our own actions.
Eastman isn't just some schlock Trump lawyer, he clerked for Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, he taught law in a tenured position.
That he even thought his plan was viable enough to write down and commit to paper shows how degraded the assumption of norms currently is in America.
First time we've been away from ours since July 2019!
And stop people going on foreign holidays. Invisibles matter too.
The 2025 date is for new-build homes by the way not the rest of the housing stock.
No new gas in existing homes is a decade away at the least.
ETA medical training needs to be reviewed but understandably, The Saj might have other things on his mind. Nonetheless, there might be quick fixes to be had.
The totally unbalanced UK-US extradition treaty under Blair, and the way they whisk their citizens out of the UK if they commit crimes never to return, dropped the scales from my eyes on the US a long time ago - so I'm not disappointed about it.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/411868328406168420/
Of course it would be better to be in the SM so we could push for higher standards all round.
And there are quite a lot of female medics these days.
Here is a relevant section:
"The growth of part-time working in general practice has been widely attributed
to feminisation of the workforce.
However, our survey showed that intentions for
part-time or portfolio working are common across both sexes. Although a greater
proportion of female than male respondents intend to work part-time and fewer
intend to work full-time, these differences diminish over progressive career points.
Looking ahead to 10 years after qualification, the proportion of male and female
respondents intending to work full-time was 13 per cent and 8 per cent respectively
while the proportion intending to work part-time was 20 per cent and 26 per cent
respectively. By contrast, a greater proportion of male respondents than female
respondents reported that they would choose a portfolio career although again these
differences diminish over time. 25 per cent of male respondents and 14 per cent of
females respondents plan to have a portfolio career 1 year after qualifying, rising
to 51 per cent of male respondents and 48 per cent of female respondents 10 years
after qualification. The most commonly cited reason for not pursuing full time
clinical work was ‘intensity of the working day’ rather than ‘family commitments’ "
(My bolding)
See here for a tutorial.
https://www.mwpweb.eu/1/153/resources/teaching_398_1.pdf
Key words here are new and 95%. I don't believe that combination and would like to see the context.
PS I am married to a Doctor.
Florida's new surgeon general is an anti-masker and anti-vaxxer.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/floridas-new-surgeon-general-skeptical-of-vaccines-opposes-masks/
Especially when combined with some at least responsible;lity for managing the practice.
"Boris Johnson had better just pray that it is a mild and windy winter. A cold and still one might yet floor him."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/09/22/energy-crisis-exposes-deep-flaws-britains-seat-pants-economy/
https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1440207158113566720?s=19
All mass produced cars of that era were badly built (possible exceptions: VW and the Japanese) and prone to rust (no exceptions) but the structural inefficiencies at BL made their badly built, rust prone cars more expensive to produce than everyone elses.
In hindsight they should have abandoned the twin product strategies of Conventional Ford Fighters (Morris) and Innovators (Austin) at least a decade before the rusty penny dropped.
Medicine as a vocation seems to have fallen by the wayside.
Wholesale rejection of results which don't suit them is also a possibility, and several states have already taken measures to make that a bit more likely.
We are not training anywhere near enough medics if they plan to only work part-time.
Lose the trade deficit and sterling goes up and British assets become more much more expensive to buy.
I do chuckle a bit at the idea of us joining NAFTA. Its like a dumped boyfriend going out desperate to find anyone who will shag them.
This is the six-point plan advanced by Trump lawyer John Eastman for VP Pence to overturn the election on January 6th.
https://t.co/IkgmEuCW8b https://t.co/CXWTVY1LL7
https://twitter.com/UrbanAchievr/status/1440062663967461387?s=19
This from the report seems closest:
"We surveyed GPs in training to better understand their intentions for future
practice. We asked respondents to state their working intentions for one year, five
years and 10 years after qualification. Of the 318 trainees who responded, 31 per
cent intended to do full-time clinical work one year after qualification, falling
to 11 per cent five years after qualification and just 10 per cent 10 years after
qualification"
* not just for doctors either.
As I said at the time, Starmer should have booted Corbyn the instant the anti-semitism report came out, and then booted anyone who came out supporting the racist old wazzock. Cut off the gangrenous limb, save the patient.
"Oh no" I was told, "Labour can't have a big factional battle". Are they not having it now? And again through the winter? And next year? The trot loons are leaving in small numbers, being expelled in tiny numbers, but are still embedded in the party and successfully hijacking the entire agenda.
Then we have the other problem. Yesterday all the loony union heads popped up. We had months of coverage of the Corbynite war in Unite. And now people like Manuel Cortez foaming on. I can't be the only one who looks at the union leaders and feels repelled by them and anyone associated with them. I support trade unions who represent and empower their members, but the union movement is like a stone chained to Labour dragging it to the sea bed.
A country which runs a current account deficit is generally buying
from the rest of the world more than what it is selling to the rest
of the world. In order to finance this overspending, the country
must borrow from the rest of the world by selling more assets to
foreigners than domestic citizens buy foreign assets. In this case,
the country is a net debtor to the rest of the world.
Symmetrically, a country running a current account surplus is a net
creditor to the rest of the world.
Our massive current account deficit since 1998 (I wonder what happened around then?) has made us a net debtor to the world.
EDIT: Oh too early in the morning, if you meant domestic investment then that's complicated. Yes initially investment reduces our savings, but it can produce savings in the long-term.
We still have to do MoTs after 3 years to this day, even though it's probably totally unnecessary and 5 years would easily do.
I’d previously suggested something similar, but with Manila or Mumbai as the partner, rather than Nairobi. Hopefully a small part of the way towards addressing the shortage of healthcare professionals.
After that, it may be possible for Starmer to safely step down having done the dirty work cleaning the stables.
Mr. Pioneers, perhaps. But this could also be an opportunity for Starmer. If he can see them off and stamp his authority on the party then this will be a loud and clear signal that the far left do not hold the whip hand in Labour any more.
If he fails, then the party will be riven with factional infighting and, worse politically, be seen to be riven with factional infighting.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1440562660341256192?s=20
If I were a union leader, I would break all official ties with Labour and acknowledge a good number of my members belong, or vote for, other parties, and blindly supporting Labour might turn potential members off.
Every couple of years or so, I would poll the membership and ask them which party they would like any political levy to go to. If (say) 65% say Labour, 20% Conservative, 15% a.n.other, then the money is split accordingly.
It is more democratic, and importantly, gets you a hearing in all the parties, not just Labour. I reckon the results of such a membership poll in most unions might be surprising.
2. We didn't have any mega rows
Unfortunately. I was hoping that would happen.
But the value of a trade deal doesn't lie in its effect on the bilateral trade surplus (otherwise they could never happen).
The trade and current account balances reflect the decisions of millions of consumers and firms. As a country we would need to save more and consume and invest less if we wanted a current account surplus. But with floating exchange rates it's not something I lose sleep about, personally. I would rather we had a "better" trade balance, because it would reflect a more balanced economy with a better mix of jobs, but in the long list of ways that this country falls short of my hopes and expectations this wouldn't even be in the top 10.