Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The big win for Johnson was getting his 90 minutes in the Oval Office – politicalbetting.com

1235

Comments

  • TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    Considering my position all along is that companies should pay the market rates and if that means prices go up, then prices go up . . . then I'm not sure how you think that the price on your favourite Champagne going marginally up but being in stock is a counter to that?

    I never said that there's no upwards price pressures. I've said the upwards prices should be paid and least productive trade will fall away.

    Anyway, as for inflation - I have said for a while some inflation would be a very good thing. For too many years we had a perverted worldview being propagated that wages going up is dangerous inflation, but prices going up (houses) is "prosperity".

    Actually wages going up is prosperity and prices going up is inflation. If the wages are going up because the market calls for it then that's a thing to be celebrated and hopefully that will deflate the cost-to-wage ratio of certain products like houses.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404
    edited September 2021
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Considering there's this major mythical shortage that certain people here have been banging on about for months ... I can still buy absolutely anything I can think of next day delivery direct to my house.

    And I can still go into supermarkets and the shelves are full.

    After months of so called crisis. I'm content to live with that. Anyone who needs a driver can pay market rates for it because there's no issues I can see. Not in the real world.

    Oh, in that case why was the last lot of timber I got for DIY of abominable quality, because that was all they had left? I had to get a refund from the very apologetic manager who explained that they were short of decent timber.

    It was bog standard softwood conifer stuff too - not tropical hardwood.
    I don't know. Maybe your supplier isn't very good? Or maybe there's an issue with timber being in high demand?
    That sort of stuff? In that quantity? It's like saying that there are shortages in the supermarkets because there is high demand for bog rolls.
    Except that we did have a shortage of bog rolls in the supermarkets due to high demand.

    Isn't DIY and construction booming right now? Maybe timber is going first to people prepared to pay more for it?
    The point I was making was that the timber was the simplest stuff - megatonnes of it [edit: as trees] out back here in Scotland, for a start. If they are short of two by ones then there is somethiong very wrong, especially as we've had the high demand for well over a year now.
    Timber shortage is genuinely cross-Europe / global.

    eg There was a piece on France24 last night about a French joiner who has had a house cladding delayed by months as he could not get the timber. Complaining perticularly about N American demand and willingness to pay high prices.

    Scotland can't really fix the UK as 2/3 of UK used timber is imported. In the scheme of things the Scottish timber industry is small.

    Plus to increase timber supply takes decades, or if you take it early then you just delay the squeeze.

    https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/timber-statistics/uk-wood-production-and-trade-provisional-figures/

    (Used to work in the industry.)

    People who are pining (sorry) for bog rolls should get hygienic and fit a Shataff. (aka Sh*t-off)
  • eekeek Posts: 18,777
    edited September 2021
    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    It's not PB that is rejoicing in a "just pay everyone more" jamboree, merely Philip. Others on here are pointing out that paying more may just increase costs with minimal to zero impact on the actual supply issue.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614
    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,015
    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    The problem is a lot of the inflation is being driven by China and there is not much we can do about it.

    So, for example, China controls around 85pc of rare metals production and is controlling exports. That is having a knock on impact on all sorts of goods. Shipping containers is all other area where China is causing a huge backlog.

    Secondly, it’s ramping us it’s gas demands just when supply is tight. Personally, I would make all the anti-frackers pay the extra energy bills households will face for their sanctimonious stance, they really are a bunch of selfish c*nts. We are where we are though.

    So the usual tools to control inflation just aren’t there unless you want to completely kill denand.
  • MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Considering there's this major mythical shortage that certain people here have been banging on about for months ... I can still buy absolutely anything I can think of next day delivery direct to my house.

    And I can still go into supermarkets and the shelves are full.

    After months of so called crisis. I'm content to live with that. Anyone who needs a driver can pay market rates for it because there's no issues I can see. Not in the real world.

    Oh, in that case why was the last lot of timber I got for DIY of abominable quality, because that was all they had left? I had to get a refund from the very apologetic manager who explained that they were short of decent timber.

    It was bog standard softwood conifer stuff too - not tropical hardwood.
    I don't know. Maybe your supplier isn't very good? Or maybe there's an issue with timber being in high demand?
    That sort of stuff? In that quantity? It's like saying that there are shortages in the supermarkets because there is high demand for bog rolls.
    Except that we did have a shortage of bog rolls in the supermarkets due to high demand.

    Isn't DIY and construction booming right now? Maybe timber is going first to people prepared to pay more for it?
    The point I was making was that the timber was the simplest stuff - megatonnes of it [edit: as trees] out back here in Scotland, for a start. If they are short of two by ones then there is somethiong very wrong, especially as we've had the high demand for well over a year now.
    Timber shortage is genuinely cross-Europe / global.

    eg There was a piece on France24 last night about a French joiner who has had a house cladding delayed by months as he could not get the timber. Complaining perticularly about N American demand and willingness to pay high prices.

    Scotland can't really fix the UK as 2/3 of UK used timber is imported. In the scheme of things the Scottish timber industry is small.

    Plus to increase timber supply takes decades, or if you take it early then you just delay the squeeze.

    https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/timber-statistics/uk-wood-production-and-trade-provisional-figures/

    (Used to work in the industry.)

    Those who are willing to pay more are getting the stock?

    image
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,015
    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    Agreed. The message is clear. If you are disabled, you are worth less than a “normal” baby. Equalise the limit.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,777
    edited September 2021

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    "We need to fish from a bigger pond", says Iceland boss Richard Walker, as he implores the Government to add HGV drivers to the skilled workers list to help elevated the crisis.

    https://trib.al/Q11CKrm https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1440943260281810945/video/1

    As was explained this morning the shortage of HGV drivers is across Europe so there is no pool of drivers readily available
    The realité is irrelevant to Scott'n Paste
    And to Iceland's boss Richard Walker apparently, but then what does he know about food distribution, eh?

    https://trib.al/Q11CKrm https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1440943260281810945/video/1
    The boss of a company doesn't want to pay people more as a solution and wants to regain access to unlimited cheap labour instead?

    I'm shocked, shocked at this completely unprecedented and unforeseen situation.
    Sure there can and should be a wages hike. But that isn't going to generate new drivers this winter.
    He isn't listening. His theory of capitalism trumps the real world practice of capitalism.

    The industry have done every single thing he says they should do. Pay more. Offer better terms and conditions. Incentives to bring qualified drivers back. All it has done is explode the wage bill and is about to tip the first big firm over - it hasn't done the slightest thing to rapido fill the hole in driver numbers.

    The industry said this would be the case from the start. Philip said they were wrong. It shouldn't be a surprise that the people who do this for a living were right.

    They can't pay more to recruit drivers in the GB. They can't train more drivers even if they had the candidates which they don't. They can't continue the lottery of not knowing which driver will still be available for work tomorrow or will have been poached. And no, we can't bring in the army.

    So we either go to the short term fix of limited time visas for imported drivers. Or we have increasing shortages of food and fuel and blood and gritter drivers and bin lorries. We know that the government will bow to the inevitable at the top of the crisis, so why not do it now?

    Allowing in EU drivers on a temporary visa can be spun as "controlled migration". We need them, they are here, then they leave again. It should be a win for the government. They can even have that nice Ms Patel waving them off with a smirk when they depart in January.
    Except the issue has been fixed.

    Companies that pay enough are getting their stock moved.
    Companies that don't are not.

    What's the problem? 🤷‍♂️

    PS if they don't have candidates to train then they're not paying enough to attract candidates. 🤷‍♂️
    Genuine lol. "Companies that pay enough are getting their stock moved"

    Well the companies in question say they are not. Perhaps they are wrong about what they are doing and you are right?

    Seriously, you should either stop digging as its embarrassing for you, or keep digging because you enjoy doing a cabaret turn.
    Maybe the companies in question aren't paying enough while their competitors are.

    I get that you think we should listen to people with a vested interest in avoiding seeing their costs rise but this is embarrassing for you. Just because people moan and feel entitled to avoid paying people a decent wage doesn't make them right.
    You seem to be missing Rochdale Pioneers point.

    Yes, wages have been increased but it's not solved any problems with the shortage of Lorry drivers as nothing could solve the supply side issue except for time.

    All the higher wages has done is move the problems elsewhere and unsurprisingly the first casualty is seems to be a specialist (refrigeration) haulier. That's because they have an even smaller supply of drivers (it's harder work, requires additional training and less pleasant due to noise) and other agencies are stealing their drivers for easier (non refrigerated) work.

    The issue once again is that 300,000 drivers cannot do the work of 400,000 drivers no matter how you try and change the rules.
    And this is the bit that "the free market will just find a new equilibrium" misses.

    Of course it will, over time. But what we're seeing now is a transient shock. It's a bit like the way that you have to push something harder to start it moving than you do to keep it moving.

    By all means move to a situation where only UK citizens are doing UK driving, if that's what the UK wants. (Though maybe we should work through all of the consequences to be sure that is what the UK wants.) But creating a shock change that doesn't work with the various degrees of stickyness in the system is asking for trouble.

    (And remember that something with lots of interacting parts like an economy will have lots of equilibrium points. And some of them will be a bit rubbish and progress towards any of them might be incredibly slow. The atoms in diamonds aren't in their optimal state, and they last basically forever.)
    So there's some trouble, its not the end of the world.

    Companies that really, really need the stock moving will pay whatever they have to in order to get the stock moved. Hence why businesses like Aldi can keep their shelves full.

    Companies that don't really need the stock moving won't.

    Demand falls, supply rises, problem resolved.

    Or we can do what Rochdale and the bosses of the companies petrified of paying a market wage want and get the state to meddle with the market - which will never be undone since this issue will arise any time you cease to meddle.
    Um that isn't what Rochdale wants - all we are doing is pointing out

    300,000 drivers working at legal limits cannot do the work of 400,000 drivers.

    Getting to 400,000 drivers has a lead time of 2-3 years.

    So we either need to get used to shortages or we need to import drivers on a time limited basis until enough GB drivers are trained up...
    300,000 drivers can't do the work of 400,000 drivers.

    But 350,000 drivers can do the work of 350,000 drivers.

    Pay rates go up, more people are attracted into the industry - some clients are decide its not worth demanding from the industry.

    Yes it means some journeys that happen now won't happen in the future. Those should be the least productive, least economic ones that can't afford the pay rise and they go off the road. That's not a bad thing.
    1) We don't have 350,000 drivers
    2) All goods and a lot of services requires items to be delivered. Moving from 400,000 drivers down to 350,000 drivers will have serious impacts on other parts of economy. The demand for logistics is very inelastic, it will never be 350,000 drivers unless our economy shrank 5%.

    1) So are you telling me there aren't 50,000 potential or ex drivers who left the sector or can be trained up? That there has been absolutely zero turnover or people voluntarily leaving the sector due to poor pay and conditions that can't be tempted back by better pay and conditions?

    2) Not necessarily at all since the journeys dropped would be the least productive, least efficient ones.

    Does anyone have the figure for how many licenced ex drivers there are in this country?
    I believe its about 300,000. As (a) recruiting them to rejoin the industry and (b) retraining them so that their expired licenses are renewed is so obvious and so quick, you have to ask why this hasn't just happened. Just pay them more and the crisis disappears in a puff of remoaner smoke!

    Meanwhile, in the real world...
    In the real world companies that are prepared to pay what needs to be paid are getting stock moved.

    Again do you have anything by anyone without a vested interest where Mandy Rice Davies applies saying there's an issue?
    Can I correct a comment from earlier today.

    Philip's inability to understand what is being explained to him means I now suspect he's not just a Tory MP but a member of the current cabinet..
    So nobody without a vested interest thinks there's an issue? Good.

    For any Remoaners or bosses MRDA explains it all.

    I think Philip is a Tory troll on the paylist of cchq, who's only function in life is to argue black is white irrespective of any real evidence. He is only saying these things to wind people up. We must stop feeding him.
    He has his views as you have yours and there is a clash between those who support leaving the EU and those who do not

    In @Philip_Thompson and @RochdalePioneers you have examples of both fighting their cause but it does not serve the debate to suggest either are trolls

    The issue there is @RochdalePioneers is talking from a position of some knowledge (for he works in food and logistics would be within his remit so he has some knowledge of it).

    @Philip_Thompson is your typical pub know-it-all, with zero real knowledge but who believes he knows best because xyz....

    I know a bit because my current project relates to agency payroll solutions so labour markets that use agencies is something I hear about.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014
    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    Good for her.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,015

    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    Considering my position all along is that companies should pay the market rates and if that means prices go up, then prices go up . . . then I'm not sure how you think that the price on your favourite Champagne going marginally up but being in stock is a counter to that?

    I never said that there's no upwards price pressures. I've said the upwards prices should be paid and least productive trade will fall away.

    Anyway, as for inflation - I have said for a while some inflation would be a very good thing. For too many years we had a perverted worldview being propagated that wages going up is dangerous inflation, but prices going up (houses) is "prosperity".

    Actually wages going up is prosperity and prices going up is inflation. If the wages are going up because the market calls for it then that's a thing to be celebrated and hopefully that will deflate the cost-to-wage ratio of certain products like houses.
    It is a sign of the derangement that the word Brexit causes in certain quarters that the increase in workers’ wages is being portrayed as a bad thing. It is absolutely fantastic, especially given labour’s falling share of wealth over the years
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,530
    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Are rental properties advertised with EPCs? Do they have to be?

    It's 7 years since I was last in the rental market, as tenant, so I'm out of touch. I know EPCs are pretty limited, but they do give some idea. When house-hunting (to buy) I do consider them at the filtering stage.

    An addition to headline EPC to give an average monthly energy bill for that type of property with that kind of EPC rating would enable landlords with better insulated homes to put the case that renting from them was preferable to renting a less insulated home.

    About ten years ago I lived in a total shocker of a flat, insulation-wise. Nice flat, nice block, nice location but the landlord had had no incentive to upgrade the origina 1970s standard (lack of) insulation. High bills, cold rooms.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,122
    SKS's essay seems to have vanished more or less without trace already. SFAICS it contains nothing except self evident general desires for a slightly better world. Has anyone spotted anything interesting in it?
  • Glen O'Hara
    @gsoh31
    ·
    16h
    Just wondering that if after the banks and the energy suppliers, one day it will be the universities that are nationalised. They certainly have many of the characteristics.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404
    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Not in my experience. Though I would not frame it like that for a T :smile:

    For a few years now I have been able to get slightly higher rents (3-4%) by doing my houses to higher standards (say the impending 2030 standard - EPC level C), by splitting the benefits of lower energy bills 50:50 between me and T.

    Say a £600 rent goes to £625-630 because the reduced energy bills go down by £60 a month.

    And because they are warm, comfortable and cheap to run, Ts stay much longer so it is a double benefit.

    We are finally seeing these energy efficiency things being reflected in the market. It's been a long time coming.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014
    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    Considering my position all along is that companies should pay the market rates and if that means prices go up, then prices go up . . . then I'm not sure how you think that the price on your favourite Champagne going marginally up but being in stock is a counter to that?

    I never said that there's no upwards price pressures. I've said the upwards prices should be paid and least productive trade will fall away.

    Anyway, as for inflation - I have said for a while some inflation would be a very good thing. For too many years we had a perverted worldview being propagated that wages going up is dangerous inflation, but prices going up (houses) is "prosperity".

    Actually wages going up is prosperity and prices going up is inflation. If the wages are going up because the market calls for it then that's a thing to be celebrated and hopefully that will deflate the cost-to-wage ratio of certain products like houses.
    It is a sign of the derangement that the word Brexit causes in certain quarters that the increase in workers’ wages is being portrayed as a bad thing. It is absolutely fantastic, especially given labour’s falling share of wealth over the years
    Indeed so. Even more amusing, is those on the political right cheering the wage rises, and those on the left decrying them.
  • Well, it’s certainly a word that rhymes with incremental. Great that we’ve damaged a market with nearby countries that eat lots of lamb in exchange for a deal with a distant country that eats hardly any though.

    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1440651596686266377?s=21
  • Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    Considering my position all along is that companies should pay the market rates and if that means prices go up, then prices go up . . . then I'm not sure how you think that the price on your favourite Champagne going marginally up but being in stock is a counter to that?

    I never said that there's no upwards price pressures. I've said the upwards prices should be paid and least productive trade will fall away.

    Anyway, as for inflation - I have said for a while some inflation would be a very good thing. For too many years we had a perverted worldview being propagated that wages going up is dangerous inflation, but prices going up (houses) is "prosperity".

    Actually wages going up is prosperity and prices going up is inflation. If the wages are going up because the market calls for it then that's a thing to be celebrated and hopefully that will deflate the cost-to-wage ratio of certain products like houses.
    It is a sign of the derangement that the word Brexit causes in certain quarters that the increase in workers’ wages is being portrayed as a bad thing. It is absolutely fantastic, especially given labour’s falling share of wealth over the years
    Indeed so. Even more amusing, is those on the political right cheering the wage rises, and those on the left decrying them.
    Indeed.

    I don't think wage rises are a bad thing, they're a good thing, so long as they're affordable. If that's what the market calls for then great.

    The issue in the past with Red Robbo etc was wage rises being demanded that were uncompetitive and the market was not calling for.

    That's the difference. Trust the market to sort it out.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,859
    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    I think this is one wish that will highly likely be err... granted.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 3,934
    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    Considering my position all along is that companies should pay the market rates and if that means prices go up, then prices go up . . . then I'm not sure how you think that the price on your favourite Champagne going marginally up but being in stock is a counter to that?

    I never said that there's no upwards price pressures. I've said the upwards prices should be paid and least productive trade will fall away.

    Anyway, as for inflation - I have said for a while some inflation would be a very good thing. For too many years we had a perverted worldview being propagated that wages going up is dangerous inflation, but prices going up (houses) is "prosperity".

    Actually wages going up is prosperity and prices going up is inflation. If the wages are going up because the market calls for it then that's a thing to be celebrated and hopefully that will deflate the cost-to-wage ratio of certain products like houses.
    It is a sign of the derangement that the word Brexit causes in certain quarters that the increase in workers’ wages is being portrayed as a bad thing. It is absolutely fantastic, especially given labour’s falling share of wealth over the years
    Yes, it’s completely gone over the heads of the chattering classes that what was probably the number one voting motivation for brexit voters is being positively impacted by the vote. Namely, reversing the globalisation of labour that has capped low skill wages.

    In the real world, the market mechanism might be dynamic but it is a bit sticky. So there’s a slightly messy period while the labour supply adjusts. But adjust it will, and most probably at a permanently higher price than before. Which is pretty much the whole point.

    It’s an added bonus that in time the higher price of labour will incentivise capital investment and innovation, in turn boosting productivity.

    Quit moaning about not getting your Evian deliveries.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404
    Selebian said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Are rental properties advertised with EPCs? Do they have to be?

    It's 7 years since I was last in the rental market, as tenant, so I'm out of touch. I know EPCs are pretty limited, but they do give some idea. When house-hunting (to buy) I do consider them at the filtering stage.

    An addition to headline EPC to give an average monthly energy bill for that type of property with that kind of EPC rating would enable landlords with better insulated homes to put the case that renting from them was preferable to renting a less insulated home.

    About ten years ago I lived in a total shocker of a flat, insulation-wise. Nice flat, nice block, nice location but the landlord had had no incentive to upgrade the origina 1970s standard (lack of) insulation. High bills, cold rooms.
    Yes they are required. Though some skate the edge a little by saying "being measured".

    In reality they are in the public domain for nearly everywhere. On that we are way ahead of the rest of Europe.

    For LLs it is an offence to not have one less than 10 years old and give it to your tenant.

    Currently the Govt is proposing as part of their green package to make all rental property be C or above for new rental contracts from 2025, an existing tenancy contracts from 2028. As opposed to 2030 at present. And heavily reduce the possibilty of avoiding it. All good, but that 2025 is quite a tough ask.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,160
    Selebian said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Are rental properties advertised with EPCs? Do they have to be?

    It's 7 years since I was last in the rental market, as tenant, so I'm out of touch. I know EPCs are pretty limited, but they do give some idea. When house-hunting (to buy) I do consider them at the filtering stage.

    An addition to headline EPC to give an average monthly energy bill for that type of property with that kind of EPC rating would enable landlords with better insulated homes to put the case that renting from them was preferable to renting a less insulated home.

    About ten years ago I lived in a total shocker of a flat, insulation-wise. Nice flat, nice block, nice location but the landlord had had no incentive to upgrade the origina 1970s standard (lack of) insulation. High bills, cold rooms.
    They are in Scotland, but the argument that it forms part of the decision of where to rent does nothing for the majority of renters who are not searching for a move. If prices suddenly go up, it'll hit the renter, not the landlord. Eventually that effect will filter through to the landlord as people move and low-efficiency housing falls in value, but it's renters who will take the brunt of the hit.
    In Scotland, new rentals need to have a minimum rating of C(?) from next spring, but that doesn't apply to existing rentals for another few years.
    So existing renters will have an opportunity to try to force their landlord's hand and threaten to move out if they don't get round to insulating, but if their bluff gets called a disruptive and unwanted move is on the cards.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    When I left school in the early 80's there were no jobs.
    Now the discussion on this site is the fact that there are too many jobs.
    How the world has changed

    If you are a school leaver it's often the case that there are still no jobs.

    Remember Philip is talking about a need for skilled, experienced HGV drivers. You don't leave school with experience.

    And that is true of an awful lot of places.
    I can can talk about School leaver Apprentices, this summer they were massively in demand, we had a total of 6 applications, and the first 2 we offered positions too turned down the offer as they had already taken another job.
    It depends. I know that the VOA currently have a number of degree apprenticeship vacancies to start in January because they screwed up and took 2 months to select candidates, telling them 3 days after the candidates accepted their university places.
    10 years ago we would get 100+ applications, now it is just a trickle
    In that case, you really do need to speak to the local schools and find out why.

    I suspect a lot of it will be because children just want to go to uni but that drop in applications needs to be investigated and fixed.
    The schools are at fault for encouraging students to stay in education to do A levels. I have tried and tried with the local schools but they receive more funding if more students stay with them so they are not interested.
  • pingping Posts: 2,138
    edited September 2021
    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself. Despite having meaningful interaction with downs people over the years, I don’t really have a firm opinion.

    Does anyone know at what point in the pregnancy, it can be tested for? And how accurate are the tests?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014
    moonshine said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    Considering my position all along is that companies should pay the market rates and if that means prices go up, then prices go up . . . then I'm not sure how you think that the price on your favourite Champagne going marginally up but being in stock is a counter to that?

    I never said that there's no upwards price pressures. I've said the upwards prices should be paid and least productive trade will fall away.

    Anyway, as for inflation - I have said for a while some inflation would be a very good thing. For too many years we had a perverted worldview being propagated that wages going up is dangerous inflation, but prices going up (houses) is "prosperity".

    Actually wages going up is prosperity and prices going up is inflation. If the wages are going up because the market calls for it then that's a thing to be celebrated and hopefully that will deflate the cost-to-wage ratio of certain products like houses.
    It is a sign of the derangement that the word Brexit causes in certain quarters that the increase in workers’ wages is being portrayed as a bad thing. It is absolutely fantastic, especially given labour’s falling share of wealth over the years
    Yes, it’s completely gone over the heads of the chattering classes that what was probably the number one voting motivation for brexit voters is being positively impacted by the vote. Namely, reversing the globalisation of labour that has capped low skill wages.

    In the real world, the market mechanism might be dynamic but it is a bit sticky. So there’s a slightly messy period while the labour supply adjusts. But adjust it will, and most probably at a permanently higher price than before. Which is pretty much the whole point.

    It’s an added bonus that in time the higher price of labour will incentivise capital investment and innovation, in turn boosting productivity.

    Quit moaning about not getting your Evian deliveries.
    Sir Stuart Rose let the cat out of the bag on the first day of the Brexit campaign - leaving the EU will mean higher wages.

    He made the non-politician’s schoolboy error, of speaking to the room (full of business leaders) and not to the wider public audience.
  • ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,620
    Sky News all over the murdered teacher for those worrying that it wasn't getting enough coverage.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404
    Pulpstar said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    I think this is one wish that will highly likely be err... granted.
    Good.

    So all that has to be done is to knock say 30% off the energy being used to heat a poor quality house, and the 30% increase will have been accounted for, and the country will be a bit less planet destroying, and we will need to build few windfarms or power stations.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614
    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself. Despite having meaningful interaction with downs people over the years, I don’t really have a firm opinion.
    The same as it is for non downs terminations and I also think the limit for all abortions should be reduced from the current 24 weeks to 22 at least
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,192

    OT Stacey Abrams going national:
    https://www.axios.com/stacey-abrams-national-tour-fc8b07ac-a5c0-4f91-a60e-24c14fb3533e.html

    One of the few people who could beat Kamala in a primary, IMHO

    Key question is if she's aiming to get her revenge and smash Kemp and grind him into the dust or if she's actually aiming for a Presidential run.

    If I was her I'd be aiming at Kemp, turn Georgia into a Blue state and then got for the Presidency but I have made many bad calls about what is a good idea or not for American politicians over the last 6 years so :shrug:
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 18,867
    algarkirk said:

    SKS's essay seems to have vanished more or less without trace already. SFAICS it contains nothing except self evident general desires for a slightly better world. Has anyone spotted anything interesting in it?

    There's an analysis here:
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour/2021/09/keir-starmer-needs-to-be-clear-about-who-his-projects-enemies-are
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 20,921
    algarkirk said:

    SKS's essay seems to have vanished more or less without trace already. SFAICS it contains nothing except self evident general desires for a slightly better world. Has anyone spotted anything interesting in it?

    I posted a point made by Stephen Bush earlier this morning - about what it did not contain. Somewhere down below, about 9 am-ish.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014
    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself. Despite having meaningful interaction with downs people over the years, I don’t really have a firm opinion.
    The same as it is for non downs terminations and I also think the limit for all abortions should be reduced from the current 24 weeks to 22 at least
    12 weeks would be considerably better, and in line with many other European countries.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    Th problem with that ethical position is that birth is itself an artificial deadline. And then we are back to how the ancient world did things......

    The current 24 weeks deadline is based, ethically & scientifically, on the average development of foetus to that point.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    "We need to fish from a bigger pond", says Iceland boss Richard Walker, as he implores the Government to add HGV drivers to the skilled workers list to help elevated the crisis.

    https://trib.al/Q11CKrm https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1440943260281810945/video/1

    As was explained this morning the shortage of HGV drivers is across Europe so there is no pool of drivers readily available
    The realité is irrelevant to Scott'n Paste
    And to Iceland's boss Richard Walker apparently, but then what does he know about food distribution, eh?

    https://trib.al/Q11CKrm https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1440943260281810945/video/1
    The boss of a company doesn't want to pay people more as a solution and wants to regain access to unlimited cheap labour instead?

    I'm shocked, shocked at this completely unprecedented and unforeseen situation.
    Sure there can and should be a wages hike. But that isn't going to generate new drivers this winter.
    He isn't listening. His theory of capitalism trumps the real world practice of capitalism.

    The industry have done every single thing he says they should do. Pay more. Offer better terms and conditions. Incentives to bring qualified drivers back. All it has done is explode the wage bill and is about to tip the first big firm over - it hasn't done the slightest thing to rapido fill the hole in driver numbers.

    The industry said this would be the case from the start. Philip said they were wrong. It shouldn't be a surprise that the people who do this for a living were right.

    They can't pay more to recruit drivers in the GB. They can't train more drivers even if they had the candidates which they don't. They can't continue the lottery of not knowing which driver will still be available for work tomorrow or will have been poached. And no, we can't bring in the army.

    So we either go to the short term fix of limited time visas for imported drivers. Or we have increasing shortages of food and fuel and blood and gritter drivers and bin lorries. We know that the government will bow to the inevitable at the top of the crisis, so why not do it now?

    Allowing in EU drivers on a temporary visa can be spun as "controlled migration". We need them, they are here, then they leave again. It should be a win for the government. They can even have that nice Ms Patel waving them off with a smirk when they depart in January.
    Except the issue has been fixed.

    Companies that pay enough are getting their stock moved.
    Companies that don't are not.

    What's the problem? 🤷‍♂️

    PS if they don't have candidates to train then they're not paying enough to attract candidates. 🤷‍♂️
    Genuine lol. "Companies that pay enough are getting their stock moved"

    Well the companies in question say they are not. Perhaps they are wrong about what they are doing and you are right?

    Seriously, you should either stop digging as its embarrassing for you, or keep digging because you enjoy doing a cabaret turn.
    Maybe the companies in question aren't paying enough while their competitors are.

    I get that you think we should listen to people with a vested interest in avoiding seeing their costs rise but this is embarrassing for you. Just because people moan and feel entitled to avoid paying people a decent wage doesn't make them right.
    You seem to be missing Rochdale Pioneers point.

    Yes, wages have been increased but it's not solved any problems with the shortage of Lorry drivers as nothing could solve the supply side issue except for time.

    All the higher wages has done is move the problems elsewhere and unsurprisingly the first casualty is seems to be a specialist (refrigeration) haulier. That's because they have an even smaller supply of drivers (it's harder work, requires additional training and less pleasant due to noise) and other agencies are stealing their drivers for easier (non refrigerated) work.

    The issue once again is that 300,000 drivers cannot do the work of 400,000 drivers no matter how you try and change the rules.
    And this is the bit that "the free market will just find a new equilibrium" misses.

    Of course it will, over time. But what we're seeing now is a transient shock. It's a bit like the way that you have to push something harder to start it moving than you do to keep it moving.

    By all means move to a situation where only UK citizens are doing UK driving, if that's what the UK wants. (Though maybe we should work through all of the consequences to be sure that is what the UK wants.) But creating a shock change that doesn't work with the various degrees of stickyness in the system is asking for trouble.

    (And remember that something with lots of interacting parts like an economy will have lots of equilibrium points. And some of them will be a bit rubbish and progress towards any of them might be incredibly slow. The atoms in diamonds aren't in their optimal state, and they last basically forever.)
    So there's some trouble, its not the end of the world.

    Companies that really, really need the stock moving will pay whatever they have to in order to get the stock moved. Hence why businesses like Aldi can keep their shelves full.

    Companies that don't really need the stock moving won't.

    Demand falls, supply rises, problem resolved.

    Or we can do what Rochdale and the bosses of the companies petrified of paying a market wage want and get the state to meddle with the market - which will never be undone since this issue will arise any time you cease to meddle.
    Not sure why you keep saying "Aldi can keep their shelves full". No, they can't. Are Aldi somehow immune to a crisis being caused by drivers they do not pay driving trucks they do not own delivering food they haven't yet bought into their depots?

    Even if Aldi manage to insulate their own drivers of their own trucks from being poached, stuff has to be delivered by someone else into their DCs before being put on an Aldi truck to go to a store.
    Inj any case, don't Aldi and Lidl have a much more, erm, flexible attitude to stock selection and control? So it's not obvious if the lack of Continental frankfurters (for instance) is a true shortage or simply them changing over to, say, burgers this week. The likes of M&S and Sainsbury are much more fixed from week to week.
    And flexibility is a good thing in a market yes.

    If inflexibility is a flaw causing issues for companies then they could deal with fixing their inflexibility rather than getting the state to fix their problems for them.
    It also makes Aldi and Lidl shite as far as I am concerned. It is also key reason I never go there except for fruit and veg on occasion - I can't find the foods I am familiar with (brands, types, quality).
    Pre-pandemic i would love shopping at Lidl. There wasn't so much choice that I had to make too many decisions. The quality was generally high. They had time-limited variety which introduced a bit of interest without an overwhelming degree of choice. And the price - after decades using the bigger supermarkets I'll often get to the checkout and be astonished that I'm not being asked for £20-30 more. I've said, "are you sure?" more than once.

    And I accepted that I would have to go elsewhere to fill in the gaps - which is why I stayed away during the pandemic. Didn't want to make multiple trips.
    Quite. We don't have a car so multiple trips are completely out for us. And the quality was sometimes very poor. Not all by any means but one never knew what one was getting.
    Well, this was in an urban area, so I did this mainly on foot or by bicycle.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,160
    I'm a little mystified at the strong arguments for free markets coming up against a belief in restriction of freedom of movement. Seems a contradiction to me. What does it mean to have a free market without the free movement of labour?
  • eekeek Posts: 18,777

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    When I left school in the early 80's there were no jobs.
    Now the discussion on this site is the fact that there are too many jobs.
    How the world has changed

    If you are a school leaver it's often the case that there are still no jobs.

    Remember Philip is talking about a need for skilled, experienced HGV drivers. You don't leave school with experience.

    And that is true of an awful lot of places.
    I can can talk about School leaver Apprentices, this summer they were massively in demand, we had a total of 6 applications, and the first 2 we offered positions too turned down the offer as they had already taken another job.
    It depends. I know that the VOA currently have a number of degree apprenticeship vacancies to start in January because they screwed up and took 2 months to select candidates, telling them 3 days after the candidates accepted their university places.
    10 years ago we would get 100+ applications, now it is just a trickle
    In that case, you really do need to speak to the local schools and find out why.

    I suspect a lot of it will be because children just want to go to uni but that drop in applications needs to be investigated and fixed.
    The schools are at fault for encouraging students to stay in education to do A levels. I have tried and tried with the local schools but they receive more funding if more students stay with them so they are not interested.
    I wasn't aware you were talking about 16+ apprenticeships - that's going to be a problem as even Government regards those as a dead-end and are trying to keep people in education until 18.

    At 18 it gets easier as the school is no longer competition.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2021
    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,777
    Farooq said:

    Selebian said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Are rental properties advertised with EPCs? Do they have to be?

    It's 7 years since I was last in the rental market, as tenant, so I'm out of touch. I know EPCs are pretty limited, but they do give some idea. When house-hunting (to buy) I do consider them at the filtering stage.

    An addition to headline EPC to give an average monthly energy bill for that type of property with that kind of EPC rating would enable landlords with better insulated homes to put the case that renting from them was preferable to renting a less insulated home.

    About ten years ago I lived in a total shocker of a flat, insulation-wise. Nice flat, nice block, nice location but the landlord had had no incentive to upgrade the origina 1970s standard (lack of) insulation. High bills, cold rooms.
    They are in Scotland, but the argument that it forms part of the decision of where to rent does nothing for the majority of renters who are not searching for a move. If prices suddenly go up, it'll hit the renter, not the landlord. Eventually that effect will filter through to the landlord as people move and low-efficiency housing falls in value, but it's renters who will take the brunt of the hit.
    In Scotland, new rentals need to have a minimum rating of C(?) from next spring, but that doesn't apply to existing rentals for another few years.
    So existing renters will have an opportunity to try to force their landlord's hand and threaten to move out if they don't get round to insulating, but if their bluff gets called a disruptive and unwanted move is on the cards.
    It's either a disruptive move or a disruptive set of improvements while the tenant is in situ.

    I suspect the theory is few improvements will be done until a tenant moves out.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404
    edited September 2021
    Farooq said:

    Selebian said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Are rental properties advertised with EPCs? Do they have to be?

    It's 7 years since I was last in the rental market, as tenant, so I'm out of touch. I know EPCs are pretty limited, but they do give some idea. When house-hunting (to buy) I do consider them at the filtering stage.

    An addition to headline EPC to give an average monthly energy bill for that type of property with that kind of EPC rating would enable landlords with better insulated homes to put the case that renting from them was preferable to renting a less insulated home.

    About ten years ago I lived in a total shocker of a flat, insulation-wise. Nice flat, nice block, nice location but the landlord had had no incentive to upgrade the origina 1970s standard (lack of) insulation. High bills, cold rooms.
    They are in Scotland, but the argument that it forms part of the decision of where to rent does nothing for the majority of renters who are not searching for a move. If prices suddenly go up, it'll hit the renter, not the landlord. Eventually that effect will filter through to the landlord as people move and low-efficiency housing falls in value, but it's renters who will take the brunt of the hit.
    In Scotland, new rentals need to have a minimum rating of C(?) from next spring, but that doesn't apply to existing rentals for another few years.
    So existing renters will have an opportunity to try to force their landlord's hand and threaten to move out if they don't get round to insulating, but if their bluff gets called a disruptive and unwanted move is on the cards.
    Scotland is, I think:

    From 1 October 2020, any new tenancy will require the property to have an EPC of at least band E.
    By 31 March 2022, all properties will need to have at least EPC band E.
    By 31 March 2025, all properties will need to have at least EPC band D.
    Currently consulting on C by 2030 aiui.

    https://www.gov.scot/publications/energy-efficient-scotland-frequently-asked-questions-private-rented-sector/

    They are behind England on standards for rentals where E was required from I think 2020, but catching up, and are ahead on Owner Occupier (2045:C I think) required standards where English politicians have been arse-sitting, but Rishi has been making quiet noises about doing something.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 18,867
    MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Not in my experience. Though I would not frame it like that for a T :smile:

    For a few years now I have been able to get slightly higher rents (3-4%) by doing my houses to higher standards (say the impending 2030 standard - EPC level C), by splitting the benefits of lower energy bills 50:50 between me and T.

    Say a £600 rent goes to £625-630 because the reduced energy bills go down by £60 a month.

    And because they are warm, comfortable and cheap to run, Ts stay much longer so it is a double benefit.

    We are finally seeing these energy efficiency things being reflected in the market. It's been a long time coming.
    Renters do get an energy statement, though it tends to be a footnote in discussions that you get when you've already agreed in principle. Agents don't seem to use it in marketing much. It would be great if they did, but probably more realistic as a deal with current tenants.

    I have utilities wrapped into my rent of £1000/month and that WAS a sales factor and of course all the more so now. My landlady is not well off and I've been guiltily wondering if I ought to offer her a higher rent (as I did when the pandemic started as I'd be more at home).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,859
    edited September 2021
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself. Despite having meaningful interaction with downs people over the years, I don’t really have a firm opinion.
    The same as it is for non downs terminations and I also think the limit for all abortions should be reduced from the current 24 weeks to 22 at least
    12 weeks would be considerably better, and in line with many other European countries.
    Deleted, Phil's post below casts new light on diagnosis at various points.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 20,921

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    "We need to fish from a bigger pond", says Iceland boss Richard Walker, as he implores the Government to add HGV drivers to the skilled workers list to help elevated the crisis.

    https://trib.al/Q11CKrm https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1440943260281810945/video/1

    As was explained this morning the shortage of HGV drivers is across Europe so there is no pool of drivers readily available
    The realité is irrelevant to Scott'n Paste
    And to Iceland's boss Richard Walker apparently, but then what does he know about food distribution, eh?

    https://trib.al/Q11CKrm https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1440943260281810945/video/1
    The boss of a company doesn't want to pay people more as a solution and wants to regain access to unlimited cheap labour instead?

    I'm shocked, shocked at this completely unprecedented and unforeseen situation.
    Sure there can and should be a wages hike. But that isn't going to generate new drivers this winter.
    He isn't listening. His theory of capitalism trumps the real world practice of capitalism.

    The industry have done every single thing he says they should do. Pay more. Offer better terms and conditions. Incentives to bring qualified drivers back. All it has done is explode the wage bill and is about to tip the first big firm over - it hasn't done the slightest thing to rapido fill the hole in driver numbers.

    The industry said this would be the case from the start. Philip said they were wrong. It shouldn't be a surprise that the people who do this for a living were right.

    They can't pay more to recruit drivers in the GB. They can't train more drivers even if they had the candidates which they don't. They can't continue the lottery of not knowing which driver will still be available for work tomorrow or will have been poached. And no, we can't bring in the army.

    So we either go to the short term fix of limited time visas for imported drivers. Or we have increasing shortages of food and fuel and blood and gritter drivers and bin lorries. We know that the government will bow to the inevitable at the top of the crisis, so why not do it now?

    Allowing in EU drivers on a temporary visa can be spun as "controlled migration". We need them, they are here, then they leave again. It should be a win for the government. They can even have that nice Ms Patel waving them off with a smirk when they depart in January.
    Except the issue has been fixed.

    Companies that pay enough are getting their stock moved.
    Companies that don't are not.

    What's the problem? 🤷‍♂️

    PS if they don't have candidates to train then they're not paying enough to attract candidates. 🤷‍♂️
    Genuine lol. "Companies that pay enough are getting their stock moved"

    Well the companies in question say they are not. Perhaps they are wrong about what they are doing and you are right?

    Seriously, you should either stop digging as its embarrassing for you, or keep digging because you enjoy doing a cabaret turn.
    Maybe the companies in question aren't paying enough while their competitors are.

    I get that you think we should listen to people with a vested interest in avoiding seeing their costs rise but this is embarrassing for you. Just because people moan and feel entitled to avoid paying people a decent wage doesn't make them right.
    You seem to be missing Rochdale Pioneers point.

    Yes, wages have been increased but it's not solved any problems with the shortage of Lorry drivers as nothing could solve the supply side issue except for time.

    All the higher wages has done is move the problems elsewhere and unsurprisingly the first casualty is seems to be a specialist (refrigeration) haulier. That's because they have an even smaller supply of drivers (it's harder work, requires additional training and less pleasant due to noise) and other agencies are stealing their drivers for easier (non refrigerated) work.

    The issue once again is that 300,000 drivers cannot do the work of 400,000 drivers no matter how you try and change the rules.
    And this is the bit that "the free market will just find a new equilibrium" misses.

    Of course it will, over time. But what we're seeing now is a transient shock. It's a bit like the way that you have to push something harder to start it moving than you do to keep it moving.

    By all means move to a situation where only UK citizens are doing UK driving, if that's what the UK wants. (Though maybe we should work through all of the consequences to be sure that is what the UK wants.) But creating a shock change that doesn't work with the various degrees of stickyness in the system is asking for trouble.

    (And remember that something with lots of interacting parts like an economy will have lots of equilibrium points. And some of them will be a bit rubbish and progress towards any of them might be incredibly slow. The atoms in diamonds aren't in their optimal state, and they last basically forever.)
    So there's some trouble, its not the end of the world.

    Companies that really, really need the stock moving will pay whatever they have to in order to get the stock moved. Hence why businesses like Aldi can keep their shelves full.

    Companies that don't really need the stock moving won't.

    Demand falls, supply rises, problem resolved.

    Or we can do what Rochdale and the bosses of the companies petrified of paying a market wage want and get the state to meddle with the market - which will never be undone since this issue will arise any time you cease to meddle.
    Not sure why you keep saying "Aldi can keep their shelves full". No, they can't. Are Aldi somehow immune to a crisis being caused by drivers they do not pay driving trucks they do not own delivering food they haven't yet bought into their depots?

    Even if Aldi manage to insulate their own drivers of their own trucks from being poached, stuff has to be delivered by someone else into their DCs before being put on an Aldi truck to go to a store.
    Inj any case, don't Aldi and Lidl have a much more, erm, flexible attitude to stock selection and control? So it's not obvious if the lack of Continental frankfurters (for instance) is a true shortage or simply them changing over to, say, burgers this week. The likes of M&S and Sainsbury are much more fixed from week to week.
    And flexibility is a good thing in a market yes.

    If inflexibility is a flaw causing issues for companies then they could deal with fixing their inflexibility rather than getting the state to fix their problems for them.
    It also makes Aldi and Lidl shite as far as I am concerned. It is also key reason I never go there except for fruit and veg on occasion - I can't find the foods I am familiar with (brands, types, quality).
    Pre-pandemic i would love shopping at Lidl. There wasn't so much choice that I had to make too many decisions. The quality was generally high. They had time-limited variety which introduced a bit of interest without an overwhelming degree of choice. And the price - after decades using the bigger supermarkets I'll often get to the checkout and be astonished that I'm not being asked for £20-30 more. I've said, "are you sure?" more than once.

    And I accepted that I would have to go elsewhere to fill in the gaps - which is why I stayed away during the pandemic. Didn't want to make multiple trips.
    Quite. We don't have a car so multiple trips are completely out for us. And the quality was sometimes very poor. Not all by any means but one never knew what one was getting.
    Well, this was in an urban area, so I did this mainly on foot or by bicycle.
    Fair enough. Our main supermarkets are some distance away.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,476

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    Considering my position all along is that companies should pay the market rates and if that means prices go up, then prices go up . . . then I'm not sure how you think that the price on your favourite Champagne going marginally up but being in stock is a counter to that?

    I never said that there's no upwards price pressures. I've said the upwards prices should be paid and least productive trade will fall away.

    Anyway, as for inflation - I have said for a while some inflation would be a very good thing. For too many years we had a perverted worldview being propagated that wages going up is dangerous inflation, but prices going up (houses) is "prosperity".

    Actually wages going up is prosperity and prices going up is inflation. If the wages are going up because the market calls for it then that's a thing to be celebrated and hopefully that will deflate the cost-to-wage ratio of certain products like houses.
    It is a sign of the derangement that the word Brexit causes in certain quarters that the increase in workers’ wages is being portrayed as a bad thing. It is absolutely fantastic, especially given labour’s falling share of wealth over the years
    Indeed so. Even more amusing, is those on the political right cheering the wage rises, and those on the left decrying them.
    Indeed.

    I don't think wage rises are a bad thing, they're a good thing, so long as they're affordable. If that's what the market calls for then great.

    The issue in the past with Red Robbo etc was wage rises being demanded that were uncompetitive and the market was not calling for.

    That's the difference. Trust the market to sort it out.
    Reporting in today's Graun. that the fear of stagflation has returned. I thought you said my fears for wage price spirals and stagflation should be left as relics of the 1980s and economic rules have changed since I studied economics back in the day.
  • ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    Th problem with that ethical position is that birth is itself an artificial deadline. And then we are back to how the ancient world did things......

    The current 24 weeks deadline is based, ethically & scientifically, on the average development of foetus to that point.
    Indeed. And for pregnancies that aren't average the deadline is extended so that people can take the time to get advice and make an informed decision.

    It is a sensitive, sensible compromise.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,530
    MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Not in my experience. Though I would not frame it like that for a T :smile:

    For a few years now I have been able to get slightly higher rents (3-4%) by doing my houses to higher standards (say the impending 2030 standard - EPC level C), by splitting the benefits of lower energy bills 50:50 between me and T.

    Say a £600 rent goes to £625-630 because the reduced energy bills go down by £60 a month.

    And because they are warm, comfortable and cheap to run, Ts stay much longer so it is a double benefit.

    We are finally seeing these energy efficiency things being reflected in the market. It's been a long time coming.
    Good to hear. In my example (the flat from ten years ago) we did offer to pay more rent to improve the situation (amount contingent on a discussion of what was done and the expected savings, but we made it clear we'd certainly pay £50 plus per month, which was probably around 7-8%, I don't recall exactly). Landlord declined and we moved. I doubt however that the landlord had much trouble re-letting - our contract expired in summer and, apart from lack of insulation, it was a desirable flat.

    (There were some viable options for insulation - neighbour owner-occupier had had blown insulation in the ceiling cavity with minimal decoration work needed and had internally insulated the external walls - the latter obviously requiring a re-finish and paint)
  • Posters around here must know some fantastically benevolent employers - i.e. when business costs increase they dish out wage increases instead of laying off staff.
  • HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    To change the law you need a majority of mps in support and on this I do not see it

    Not that I disagree with you
  • eekeek Posts: 18,777
    MattW said:

    Selebian said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Are rental properties advertised with EPCs? Do they have to be?

    It's 7 years since I was last in the rental market, as tenant, so I'm out of touch. I know EPCs are pretty limited, but they do give some idea. When house-hunting (to buy) I do consider them at the filtering stage.

    An addition to headline EPC to give an average monthly energy bill for that type of property with that kind of EPC rating would enable landlords with better insulated homes to put the case that renting from them was preferable to renting a less insulated home.

    About ten years ago I lived in a total shocker of a flat, insulation-wise. Nice flat, nice block, nice location but the landlord had had no incentive to upgrade the origina 1970s standard (lack of) insulation. High bills, cold rooms.
    Yes they are required. Though some skate the edge a little by saying "being measured".

    In reality they are in the public domain for nearly everywhere. On that we are way ahead of the rest of Europe.

    For LLs it is an offence to not have one less than 10 years old and give it to your tenant.

    Currently the Govt is proposing as part of their green package to make all rental property be C or above for new rental contracts from 2025, an existing tenancy contracts from 2028. As opposed to 2030 at present. And heavily reduce the possibilty of avoiding it. All good, but that 2025 is quite a tough ask.
    2028 would be a tough ask - grade C is difficult for old properties to hit.

    In theory our house is a grade D and it's blooming cold in the front during winter.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404
    edited September 2021
    Farooq said:

    Selebian said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Are rental properties advertised with EPCs? Do they have to be?

    It's 7 years since I was last in the rental market, as tenant, so I'm out of touch. I know EPCs are pretty limited, but they do give some idea. When house-hunting (to buy) I do consider them at the filtering stage.

    An addition to headline EPC to give an average monthly energy bill for that type of property with that kind of EPC rating would enable landlords with better insulated homes to put the case that renting from them was preferable to renting a less insulated home.

    About ten years ago I lived in a total shocker of a flat, insulation-wise. Nice flat, nice block, nice location but the landlord had had no incentive to upgrade the origina 1970s standard (lack of) insulation. High bills, cold rooms.
    They are in Scotland, but the argument that it forms part of the decision of where to rent does nothing for the majority of renters who are not searching for a move. If prices suddenly go up, it'll hit the renter, not the landlord. Eventually that effect will filter through to the landlord as people move and low-efficiency housing falls in value, but it's renters who will take the brunt of the hit.
    In Scotland, new rentals need to have a minimum rating of C(?) from next spring, but that doesn't apply to existing rentals for another few years.
    So existing renters will have an opportunity to try to force their landlord's hand and threaten to move out if they don't get round to insulating, but if their bluff gets called a disruptive and unwanted move is on the cards.
    To be fair on this, a decent Energy Efficiency reno will likely require an empty property, as you need to do things like underfloor insulation, dry lining, and decent windows. Can be done, but difficult.

    In England, I think Ts already have a right from some time ago to force their LLs to do 'reasonable' renovations (eg insulation under ECO scheme), but it gets tangled up with politics around 'forced evictions'.

    Far better to realign the market, and get things to a level where poor quality properties are marginalised or banned.
  • Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    Considering my position all along is that companies should pay the market rates and if that means prices go up, then prices go up . . . then I'm not sure how you think that the price on your favourite Champagne going marginally up but being in stock is a counter to that?

    I never said that there's no upwards price pressures. I've said the upwards prices should be paid and least productive trade will fall away.

    Anyway, as for inflation - I have said for a while some inflation would be a very good thing. For too many years we had a perverted worldview being propagated that wages going up is dangerous inflation, but prices going up (houses) is "prosperity".

    Actually wages going up is prosperity and prices going up is inflation. If the wages are going up because the market calls for it then that's a thing to be celebrated and hopefully that will deflate the cost-to-wage ratio of certain products like houses.
    It is a sign of the derangement that the word Brexit causes in certain quarters that the increase in workers’ wages is being portrayed as a bad thing. It is absolutely fantastic, especially given labour’s falling share of wealth over the years
    Indeed so. Even more amusing, is those on the political right cheering the wage rises, and those on the left decrying them.
    Indeed.

    I don't think wage rises are a bad thing, they're a good thing, so long as they're affordable. If that's what the market calls for then great.

    The issue in the past with Red Robbo etc was wage rises being demanded that were uncompetitive and the market was not calling for.

    That's the difference. Trust the market to sort it out.
    Reporting in today's Graun. that the fear of stagflation has returned. I thought you said my fears for wage price spirals and stagflation should be left as relics of the 1980s and economic rules have changed since I studied economics back in the day.
    Stagflation is high unemployment combined with high inflation. I don't see any sign of high unemployment. Do you?

    The understanding of economics, including deflationary pressures, has changed since the 80s yes. I stand by that. Of course inflationary pressures can exceed deflationary pressures - but the notion you used that expansion of monetary supply must cause inflation is wrong. It causes inflationary pressures, but if deflationary pressures exceed it then we don't have inflation.
  • Posters around here must know some fantastically benevolent employers - i.e. when business costs increase they dish out wage increases instead of laying off staff.

    If there's a labour shortage and certain employers lay off staff rather than paying for wage increases, then that closes the labour shortage and a new equilibrium is reached!
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,160
    MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    Selebian said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Are rental properties advertised with EPCs? Do they have to be?

    It's 7 years since I was last in the rental market, as tenant, so I'm out of touch. I know EPCs are pretty limited, but they do give some idea. When house-hunting (to buy) I do consider them at the filtering stage.

    An addition to headline EPC to give an average monthly energy bill for that type of property with that kind of EPC rating would enable landlords with better insulated homes to put the case that renting from them was preferable to renting a less insulated home.

    About ten years ago I lived in a total shocker of a flat, insulation-wise. Nice flat, nice block, nice location but the landlord had had no incentive to upgrade the origina 1970s standard (lack of) insulation. High bills, cold rooms.
    They are in Scotland, but the argument that it forms part of the decision of where to rent does nothing for the majority of renters who are not searching for a move. If prices suddenly go up, it'll hit the renter, not the landlord. Eventually that effect will filter through to the landlord as people move and low-efficiency housing falls in value, but it's renters who will take the brunt of the hit.
    In Scotland, new rentals need to have a minimum rating of C(?) from next spring, but that doesn't apply to existing rentals for another few years.
    So existing renters will have an opportunity to try to force their landlord's hand and threaten to move out if they don't get round to insulating, but if their bluff gets called a disruptive and unwanted move is on the cards.
    Scotland is, I think:

    From 1 October 2020, any new tenancy will require the property to have an EPC of at least band E.
    By 31 March 2022, all properties will need to have at least EPC band E.
    By 31 March 2025, all properties will need to have at least EPC band D.
    Currently consulting on C by 2030 aiui.

    https://www.gov.scot/publications/energy-efficient-scotland-frequently-asked-questions-private-rented-sector/

    They are behind England on standards for rentals where E was required from I think 2020, but catching up, and are ahead on Owner Occupier (2045:C I think) required standards where English politicians have been arse-sitting, but Rishi has been making quiet noises about doing something.
    I asked my MSP about this a while ago, just dug out the email:

    From 1 October 2020, any new tenancy will require the property to have an EPC of at least band E.
    By 31 March 2022, all properties will need to have at least EPC band E.
    From 1 April 2022, any new tenancy will require the property to have an EPC of at least band D.
    By 31 March 2025, all properties will need to have at least EPC band D.
    Regulations to set these standards will come in to force on 1 April 2020.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,859

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614
    edited September 2021

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    To change the law you need a majority of mps in support and on this I do not see it

    Not that I disagree with you
    There is a Tory majority now and there are plenty of Tory MPs who are pro life, Rees Mogg, Dorries etc and far more I suspect who back equalising the law on termination for downs and non downs foetuses as in this case.

    The DUP of course would be in favour too. This is exactly the sort of thing a Conservative government should and could get through while it still has a majority
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,859
    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Selebian said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Are rental properties advertised with EPCs? Do they have to be?

    It's 7 years since I was last in the rental market, as tenant, so I'm out of touch. I know EPCs are pretty limited, but they do give some idea. When house-hunting (to buy) I do consider them at the filtering stage.

    An addition to headline EPC to give an average monthly energy bill for that type of property with that kind of EPC rating would enable landlords with better insulated homes to put the case that renting from them was preferable to renting a less insulated home.

    About ten years ago I lived in a total shocker of a flat, insulation-wise. Nice flat, nice block, nice location but the landlord had had no incentive to upgrade the origina 1970s standard (lack of) insulation. High bills, cold rooms.
    Yes they are required. Though some skate the edge a little by saying "being measured".

    In reality they are in the public domain for nearly everywhere. On that we are way ahead of the rest of Europe.

    For LLs it is an offence to not have one less than 10 years old and give it to your tenant.

    Currently the Govt is proposing as part of their green package to make all rental property be C or above for new rental contracts from 2025, an existing tenancy contracts from 2028. As opposed to 2030 at present. And heavily reduce the possibilty of avoiding it. All good, but that 2025 is quite a tough ask.
    2028 would be a tough ask - grade C is difficult for old properties to hit.

    In theory our house is a grade D and it's blooming cold in the front during winter.
    My house is a B with my panels.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The NHS practically orders you to have the tests for foetal issues when the expectant mother is over a certain age - and age is a big determinant in foetal problems.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,108
    Selebian said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Are rental properties advertised with EPCs? Do they have to be?

    It's 7 years since I was last in the rental market, as tenant, so I'm out of touch. I know EPCs are pretty limited, but they do give some idea. When house-hunting (to buy) I do consider them at the filtering stage.

    An addition to headline EPC to give an average monthly energy bill for that type of property with that kind of EPC rating would enable landlords with better insulated homes to put the case that renting from them was preferable to renting a less insulated home.

    About ten years ago I lived in a total shocker of a flat, insulation-wise. Nice flat, nice block, nice location but the landlord had had no incentive to upgrade the origina 1970s standard (lack of) insulation. High bills, cold rooms.
    You need to decide what your priority is. I have always lived in old properties with high ceilings because I appreciate their aesthetic value, and take the high bills as part of the cost. That's my perspective. The EPC is largely irrellevant. It was true both when renting and after buying.

    Were I to upgrade my current building to get a better EPC I would need to do damaging works which would essentially amount to a form of vandalism; ie by ripping out the walls or ceiling, or the original single glazed windows.

    I have some scepticism about EPC's based on the current encouragement of electrical storage heaters, which the government are currently funding for low income households, and which would presumably increase the EPC rating of a building. These are universally derided by builders and tradesmen; they rely on uneconomic economy 7 tariffs forcing you to accept higher electricity prices in the daytime, and they don't heat the house when you most need it; ie on very cold winter evenings, forcing you to use expensive temporary electric heaters or portable gas heaters instead.



  • Alistair said:

    OT Stacey Abrams going national:
    https://www.axios.com/stacey-abrams-national-tour-fc8b07ac-a5c0-4f91-a60e-24c14fb3533e.html

    One of the few people who could beat Kamala in a primary, IMHO

    Key question is if she's aiming to get her revenge and smash Kemp and grind him into the dust or if she's actually aiming for a Presidential run.

    If I was her I'd be aiming at Kemp, turn Georgia into a Blue state and then got for the Presidency but I have made many bad calls about what is a good idea or not for American politicians over the last 6 years so :shrug:
    I think she can run against him in 2022. She'll probably lose because mid-terms, which isn't an ideal background to run for president in 2024 but it should be survivable. Winning then running in 2024 is a bit rude to the voters of Georgia but also doable, especially if the Dems don't have a lot of other pickups.

    Winning then Biden doing another term would also be a great setup.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,378
    tlg86 said:

    Sky News all over the murdered teacher for those worrying that it wasn't getting enough coverage.

    Good, although its seems to have taken 7 days to get to this point.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    To change the law you need a majority of mps in support and on this I do not see it

    Not that I disagree with you
    There is a Tory majority now and there are plenty of Tory MPs who are pro life, Rees Mogg, Dorries etc and far more I suspect who back equalising the law on termination for downs and non downs foetuses as in this case
    It’s not something that should be whipped, although you might disagree, but I’m sure the Leader of the House could be relied upon to look favourably at a Private Member’s Bill on the subject.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    When I left school in the early 80's there were no jobs.
    Now the discussion on this site is the fact that there are too many jobs.
    How the world has changed

    If you are a school leaver it's often the case that there are still no jobs.

    Remember Philip is talking about a need for skilled, experienced HGV drivers. You don't leave school with experience.

    And that is true of an awful lot of places.
    I can can talk about School leaver Apprentices, this summer they were massively in demand, we had a total of 6 applications, and the first 2 we offered positions too turned down the offer as they had already taken another job.
    It depends. I know that the VOA currently have a number of degree apprenticeship vacancies to start in January because they screwed up and took 2 months to select candidates, telling them 3 days after the candidates accepted their university places.
    10 years ago we would get 100+ applications, now it is just a trickle
    In that case, you really do need to speak to the local schools and find out why.

    I suspect a lot of it will be because children just want to go to uni but that drop in applications needs to be investigated and fixed.
    The schools are at fault for encouraging students to stay in education to do A levels. I have tried and tried with the local schools but they receive more funding if more students stay with them so they are not interested.
    I wasn't aware you were talking about 16+ apprenticeships - that's going to be a problem as even Government regards those as a dead-end and are trying to keep people in education until 18.

    At 18 it gets easier as the school is no longer competition.
    The problem is that if they start apprenticeships at 18 then they do not full funding and the employer has to pay a lot more, we only ever take school leavers as it is so much easier , especially with the apprenticeship levy stuff.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,122
    edited September 2021
    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    SKS's essay seems to have vanished more or less without trace already. SFAICS it contains nothing except self evident general desires for a slightly better world. Has anyone spotted anything interesting in it?

    I posted a point made by Stephen Bush earlier this morning - about what it did not contain. Somewhere down below, about 9 am-ish.
    Yes, thanks. I noticed it at the time. What the excellent Stephen Bush didn't say was that the essay was brilliant, full of new ideas and made all the relevant calls about difficult choices so that we knew what SKS stood for.

    The usual suspects - BBC, Guardian, Mirror, are not giving it great prominence.

    Labour List manages this lapidary thought:


    The central point of the pamphlet is that Britain faces a choice between a country led by a Labour leader committed to equality, security, responsibility and collective action – or incompetence, selfishness, atomisation, cronyism and free-market dogma under the Tories.

    You don't say. Gosh.

  • eekeek Posts: 18,777
    edited September 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    Somethings are missed in early scans.

    We didn't know if Twin A had a spine because her position (and that of twin B ) during all our scans meant it was impossible for the nurse to see.

    And as Philip states, a rushed decision would probably result in a decision to terminate where a bit of time for research results in a different decision, once people have discovered the amount of support available.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,859

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The NHS practically orders you to have the tests for foetal issues when the expectant mother is over a certain age - and age is a big determinant in foetal problems.
    Sure, that does for the overwhelming majority of trisomy but there's always going to be a case here or there that doesn't get picked up till the 20 week scan.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    We disagree, but that is a well-argued case. Personally, I would direct resources to those with a disabled child, rather than - as happens now - try to direct expectant mothers towards a different decision.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,859
    edited September 2021

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    I think "Ground C" abortion (99% of elected terminations) should probably be reduced to 16 weeks maximum though. I can't think of a good justification for aborting a healthy 23 week foetus.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,160
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    I think "Ground C" abortion (99% of terminations) should probably be reduced to 16 weeks maximum though. I can't think of a good justification for aborting a healthy 23 week foetus.
    I can think of one: if the woman chooses it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    All the case was about today was equalising the abortion time limit for downs and non downs babies at 24 weeks, not even reducing it to 22 weeks so ample time still for a decision to be made after due consideration
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    I think "Ground C" abortion (99% of terminations) should probably be reduced to 16 weeks maximum though. I can't think of a good justification for aborting a healthy 23 week foetus.
    Especially not when there are 22-week and 21-week babies in incubators, in the room next door.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,777
    edited September 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    I think "Ground C" abortion (99% of terminations) should probably be reduced to 16 weeks maximum though. I can't think of a good justification for aborting a healthy 23 week foetus.
    I'm not going looking to see what the actual rules are but changing the rules except for XYZ opens up the ability to eventually remove those exceptions (see america for oh so many examples of such things occurring both in abortion and almost everything else).

    The current law isn't perfect but surely it's better to only have babies that are completely wanted brought into the world.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,859
    edited September 2021
    Farooq said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    I think "Ground C" abortion (99% of terminations) should probably be reduced to 16 weeks maximum though. I can't think of a good justification for aborting a healthy 23 week foetus.
    I can think of one: if the woman chooses it.
    If that's the argument, why not ground C at 28, 30 or 35 weeks ?
  • pingping Posts: 2,138
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    Somethings are missed in early scans.

    We didn't know if Twin A had a spine because her position (and that of twin B ) during all our scans meant it was impossible for the nurse to see.

    And as Philip states, a rushed decision would probably result in a decision to terminate where a bit of time for research results in a different decision, once people have discovered the amount of support available.
    Thing is, many (most?) downs people need lifelong support. After the early years this drops away for all but the most severe cases. I have an adult younger brother with severe disabilities (not downs) and have seen first hand how those with what the system classes as “moderate” disabilities have struggled for support as adults. This has got so much worse since 2010.

    We can, and should, do better as a society to support these individuals, but the costs for the taxpayer are high. I think it’s worth it. Many, particularly on the right, would rather bank a tax cut than pay the costs.

    That’s the reality.

    It’s the reality that needs to be presented to prospective mothers of downs pregnancies.

    Cute kids turn into demanding adults and the support is limited.

    Termination is a tough decision and I support whatever decision mothers make.

    Termination near-birth does seem somehow morally wrong, though.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,777
    edited September 2021
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    We disagree, but that is a well-argued case. Personally, I would direct resources to those with a disabled child, rather than - as happens now - try to direct expectant mothers towards a different decision.
    Direct expectant mothers into what decision? Given that we haven't been there, and every case is completely and uniquely different, we don't know what information expectant mothers facing life changing decisions are given.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404
    edited September 2021
    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Selebian said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Are rental properties advertised with EPCs? Do they have to be?

    It's 7 years since I was last in the rental market, as tenant, so I'm out of touch. I know EPCs are pretty limited, but they do give some idea. When house-hunting (to buy) I do consider them at the filtering stage.

    An addition to headline EPC to give an average monthly energy bill for that type of property with that kind of EPC rating would enable landlords with better insulated homes to put the case that renting from them was preferable to renting a less insulated home.

    About ten years ago I lived in a total shocker of a flat, insulation-wise. Nice flat, nice block, nice location but the landlord had had no incentive to upgrade the origina 1970s standard (lack of) insulation. High bills, cold rooms.
    Yes they are required. Though some skate the edge a little by saying "being measured".

    In reality they are in the public domain for nearly everywhere. On that we are way ahead of the rest of Europe.

    For LLs it is an offence to not have one less than 10 years old and give it to your tenant.

    Currently the Govt is proposing as part of their green package to make all rental property be C or above for new rental contracts from 2025, an existing tenancy contracts from 2028. As opposed to 2030 at present. And heavily reduce the possibilty of avoiding it. All good, but that 2025 is quite a tough ask.
    2028 would be a tough ask - grade C is difficult for old properties to hit.

    In theory our house is a grade D and it's blooming cold in the front during winter.
    I don't agree on Grade C being difficult for most properties, based on ones I have done. They chose that back in 2013 or so iirc because it was somewhat ambitious but practical. I like properties from before Asbestos, as asbestosis got my dad on a very minimal exposure.

    It is difficult for quirky, and if the EPC assessor misses things, and the crude EPC may not bear much resemblance to actual bills.

    I have one which is a 2 up 2 down detached 500 sqft 1850 cottage, where all 4 rooms have 3 solid outside walls.

    Much has been spent over 10 years (10k+) with the same T, and energy bills now are £125 a month, where in 2010 they were £210 a month, despite a sun lounge added which has added 60% to the property area.

    It is an E51. And I don't think there is much left that can be done, short of stuff with 40-50 year paybacks or a solar array to nobble the calculation (loophole). eg External wall insulation will cost £15k and save £300 a year.
  • Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    We disagree, but that is a well-argued case. Personally, I would direct resources to those with a disabled child, rather than - as happens now - try to direct expectant mothers towards a different decision.
    I can agree with you on that. I think pregnant women in those circumstances should be offered all available options and support so that they can think it through carefully. Its not a decision that should be taken lightly or be pushed to a certain predetermined outcome.
  • Posters around here must know some fantastically benevolent employers - i.e. when business costs increase they dish out wage increases instead of laying off staff.

    If there's a labour shortage and certain employers lay off staff rather than paying for wage increases, then that closes the labour shortage and a new equilibrium is reached!
    Not really, because you then get one poor sod doing the job that the market had previously determined needed to be done by three, so quality of output is diminished.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,476

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    Considering my position all along is that companies should pay the market rates and if that means prices go up, then prices go up . . . then I'm not sure how you think that the price on your favourite Champagne going marginally up but being in stock is a counter to that?

    I never said that there's no upwards price pressures. I've said the upwards prices should be paid and least productive trade will fall away.

    Anyway, as for inflation - I have said for a while some inflation would be a very good thing. For too many years we had a perverted worldview being propagated that wages going up is dangerous inflation, but prices going up (houses) is "prosperity".

    Actually wages going up is prosperity and prices going up is inflation. If the wages are going up because the market calls for it then that's a thing to be celebrated and hopefully that will deflate the cost-to-wage ratio of certain products like houses.
    It is a sign of the derangement that the word Brexit causes in certain quarters that the increase in workers’ wages is being portrayed as a bad thing. It is absolutely fantastic, especially given labour’s falling share of wealth over the years
    Indeed so. Even more amusing, is those on the political right cheering the wage rises, and those on the left decrying them.
    Indeed.

    I don't think wage rises are a bad thing, they're a good thing, so long as they're affordable. If that's what the market calls for then great.

    The issue in the past with Red Robbo etc was wage rises being demanded that were uncompetitive and the market was not calling for.

    That's the difference. Trust the market to sort it out.
    Reporting in today's Graun. that the fear of stagflation has returned. I thought you said my fears for wage price spirals and stagflation should be left as relics of the 1980s and economic rules have changed since I studied economics back in the day.
    Stagflation is high unemployment combined with high inflation. I don't see any sign of high unemployment. Do you?

    The understanding of economics, including deflationary pressures, has changed since the 80s yes. I stand by that. Of course inflationary pressures can exceed deflationary pressures - but the notion you used that expansion of monetary supply must cause inflation is wrong. It causes inflationary pressures, but if deflationary pressures exceed it then we don't have inflation.
    Stagation means economic stagnation. i.e. negative growth in sectors of the economy, or in the greater economy AND inflationary pressures. Rates of employment might be a symptom, I guess.
  • MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    The “what happens if the wind doesn’t blow” question will at least partly be addressed in due course with battery storage, but we sometimes miss the big picture on renewables.

    The reason we only have 1-2gw of wind power in calm anti cyclonic conditions is because we only have about 18gw of peak capacity. Build 10x as much, plus more solar (which often generates well during times there is little wind) and even in calm periods we have 10-20gw being generated. We have massive latency in traditional generation capacity. We need to get used to latency in renewables too. It’s already happening in parts of the US and China with solar. The infrastructure is cheap enough that it’s viable simply to build much more than you need and switch it off when there’s too much sun. (Or use the excess to smelt aluminium / make carbon fibre / isolate hydrogen).

    We are now into autumn winds. In Sky Blue. Wind running at 10+GW now.



    Plus (I think - this needs translating https://www.nationalgrid.com/incidents) the burnt down interconnector is about to come back on with 1GW capacity. And the Norway Interconnector comes on stream in the next month at 1.4GW.

    TBH I think the supply issue is very close to fixed. I think it will all be very different in just a month or so.

    Effectively artificially low prices have been subsidised or years by the capital of people who invested in companies with unsustainable business models. Who are now falling out.

    Personally I hope that we stick with somewhat higher prices, and the current 'crisis' will persuade some people to improve the Energy Efficiency of their homes.
    That's a tricky argument to take to renters.
    Not in my experience. Though I would not frame it like that for a T :smile:

    For a few years now I have been able to get slightly higher rents (3-4%) by doing my houses to higher standards (say the impending 2030 standard - EPC level C), by splitting the benefits of lower energy bills 50:50 between me and T.

    Say a £600 rent goes to £625-630 because the reduced energy bills go down by £60 a month.

    And because they are warm, comfortable and cheap to run, Ts stay much longer so it is a double benefit.

    We are finally seeing these energy efficiency things being reflected in the market. It's been a long time coming.
    Hi Matt

    For info purposes could you tell me what you charge for a flat in your area? 2 years ago I was paying over 1000 a month for a 2 bed flat in Oxfordshire, which I found quite difficult to manage at the time (along with £130 a month poll tax).
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 20,921
    ping said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    Somethings are missed in early scans.

    We didn't know if Twin A had a spine because her position (and that of twin B ) during all our scans meant it was impossible for the nurse to see.

    And as Philip states, a rushed decision would probably result in a decision to terminate where a bit of time for research results in a different decision, once people have discovered the amount of support available.
    Thing is, many (most?) downs people need lifelong support. After the early years this drops away for all but the most severe cases. I have an adult younger brother with severe disabilities (not downs) and have seen first hand how those with what the system classes as “moderate” disabilities have struggled for support as adults. This has got so much worse since 2010.

    We can, and should, do better as a society to support these individuals, but the costs for the taxpayer are high. I think it’s worth it. Many, particularly on the right, would rather bank a tax cut than pay the costs.

    That’s the reality.

    It’s the reality that needs to be presented to prospective mothers of downs pregnancies.

    Cute kids turn into demanding adults and the support is limited.

    Termination is a tough decision and I support whatever decision mothers make.

    Termination near-birth does seem somehow morally wrong, though.
    Also, what happens when the parents get old and incapacitated or die? Support vanishes at the worst possible time emotionally.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    The problem is a lot of the inflation is being driven by China and there is not much we can do about it.

    So, for example, China controls around 85pc of rare metals production and is controlling exports. That is having a knock on impact on all sorts of goods. Shipping containers is all other area where China is causing a huge backlog.

    Secondly, it’s ramping us it’s gas demands just when supply is tight. Personally, I would make all the anti-frackers pay the extra energy bills households will face for their sanctimonious stance, they really are a bunch of selfish c*nts. We are where we are though.

    So the usual tools to control inflation just aren’t there unless you want to completely kill denand.
    The problem with "needing a bit of inflation" is that for a large number of workers wages won't rise hence the "inflating away the debt" and so forth is meaningless. Inflation is corrosive and while I appreciate that there are many youngsters who get their understanding of inflation from text books, in the real world it is a very malign phenomenon.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,777
    ping said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    Somethings are missed in early scans.

    We didn't know if Twin A had a spine because her position (and that of twin B ) during all our scans meant it was impossible for the nurse to see.

    And as Philip states, a rushed decision would probably result in a decision to terminate where a bit of time for research results in a different decision, once people have discovered the amount of support available.
    Thing is, many (most?) downs people need lifelong support. After the early years this drops away for all but the most severe cases. I have an adult younger brother with severe disabilities (not downs) and have seen first hand how those with what the system classes as “moderate” disabilities have struggled for support as adults. This has got so much worse since 2010.

    We can, and should, do better as a society to support these individuals, but the costs for the taxpayer are high. I think it’s worth it. Many, particularly on the right, would rather bank a tax cut than pay the costs.

    That’s the reality.

    It’s the reality that needs to be presented to prospective mothers of downs pregnancies.

    Cute kids turn into demanding adults and the support is limited.

    Termination is a tough decision and I support whatever decision mothers make.

    Termination near-birth does seem somehow morally wrong, though.
    Your last sentence goes against everything you've said above... In fact the first paragraph implies it would be morally wrong not to terminate if the issue was only discovered very near-birth.

    This is an emotive subject which is why I try to avoid discussions on it. Personally it's got to be the choice of the parents....
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    I think "Ground C" abortion (99% of elected terminations) should probably be reduced to 16 weeks maximum though. I can't think of a good justification for aborting a healthy 23 week foetus.
    Again the same issue applies. Women can only discover they're pregnant at around 12 weeks sometimes and then you're saying to them "you weren't trying, but you've just discovered you're pregnant - are you aborting it? Decide right now".

    What purpose does rushing the decision serve? If the woman at 15 weeks wants to take a month or two to decide rather than being rushed to a clinic today then what harm does that do?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,160
    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    I think "Ground C" abortion (99% of terminations) should probably be reduced to 16 weeks maximum though. I can't think of a good justification for aborting a healthy 23 week foetus.
    I can think of one: if the woman chooses it.
    If that's the argument, why not 28, 30 or 35 weeks ?
    Why not indeed. Not a decision I'd recommend, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    To change the law you need a majority of mps in support and on this I do not see it

    Not that I disagree with you
    There is a Tory majority now and there are plenty of Tory MPs who are pro life, Rees Mogg, Dorries etc and far more I suspect who back equalising the law on termination for downs and non downs foetuses as in this case.

    The DUP of course would be in favour too. This is exactly the sort of thing a Conservative government should and could get through while it still has a majority
    I dont think this needs to be reserved for Tory MPs, I'm sure a lot of MPs from all areas could help here.
  • Theo Bertram
    @theobertram
    ·
    51m
    None of this is rocket science but at last Labour has a leader who is trying to reach out to the voters Labour lost to the Tories by starting from where they are rather than where he is.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,620
    Farooq said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    I think "Ground C" abortion (99% of terminations) should probably be reduced to 16 weeks maximum though. I can't think of a good justification for aborting a healthy 23 week foetus.
    I can think of one: if the woman chooses it.
    If that's the argument, why not 28, 30 or 35 weeks ?
    Why not indeed. Not a decision I'd recommend, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
    Would put the doctors and nurses in an interesting position...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,010
    edited September 2021
    A glancing reference the SKS paper; it appears the Staggers isn’t overly enthused.
    I’m sure all the uniquely talented individuals on PB who got where they are solely by their own hard work will disagree with Sandel. Interesting that Sandel has been an influence on Scholz.

    https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1441000129029451779?s=21
  • TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    The problem is a lot of the inflation is being driven by China and there is not much we can do about it.

    So, for example, China controls around 85pc of rare metals production and is controlling exports. That is having a knock on impact on all sorts of goods. Shipping containers is all other area where China is causing a huge backlog.

    Secondly, it’s ramping us it’s gas demands just when supply is tight. Personally, I would make all the anti-frackers pay the extra energy bills households will face for their sanctimonious stance, they really are a bunch of selfish c*nts. We are where we are though.

    So the usual tools to control inflation just aren’t there unless you want to completely kill denand.
    The problem with "needing a bit of inflation" is that for a large number of workers wages won't rise hence the "inflating away the debt" and so forth is meaningless. Inflation is corrosive and while I appreciate that there are many youngsters who get their understanding of inflation from text books, in the real world it is a very malign phenomenon.
    "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"

    That great line applies to inflation too. Inflation has been in our society for years now, just not in wages or consumer prices. Some wage inflation now could cancel out the other forms of inflation that have so corroded our society for decades.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    Considering my position all along is that companies should pay the market rates and if that means prices go up, then prices go up . . . then I'm not sure how you think that the price on your favourite Champagne going marginally up but being in stock is a counter to that?

    I never said that there's no upwards price pressures. I've said the upwards prices should be paid and least productive trade will fall away.

    Anyway, as for inflation - I have said for a while some inflation would be a very good thing. For too many years we had a perverted worldview being propagated that wages going up is dangerous inflation, but prices going up (houses) is "prosperity".

    Actually wages going up is prosperity and prices going up is inflation. If the wages are going up because the market calls for it then that's a thing to be celebrated and hopefully that will deflate the cost-to-wage ratio of certain products like houses.
    It is a sign of the derangement that the word Brexit causes in certain quarters that the increase in workers’ wages is being portrayed as a bad thing. It is absolutely fantastic, especially given labour’s falling share of wealth over the years
    Indeed so. Even more amusing, is those on the political right cheering the wage rises, and those on the left decrying them.
    Indeed.

    I don't think wage rises are a bad thing, they're a good thing, so long as they're affordable. If that's what the market calls for then great.

    The issue in the past with Red Robbo etc was wage rises being demanded that were uncompetitive and the market was not calling for.

    That's the difference. Trust the market to sort it out.
    Like in 2008.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,160
    tlg86 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    I think "Ground C" abortion (99% of terminations) should probably be reduced to 16 weeks maximum though. I can't think of a good justification for aborting a healthy 23 week foetus.
    I can think of one: if the woman chooses it.
    If that's the argument, why not 28, 30 or 35 weeks ?
    Why not indeed. Not a decision I'd recommend, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
    Would put the doctors and nurses in an interesting position...
    Doctors and nurses should be allowed to personally refuse to carry out terminations if they want.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014
    ping said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    Somethings are missed in early scans.

    We didn't know if Twin A had a spine because her position (and that of twin B ) during all our scans meant it was impossible for the nurse to see.

    And as Philip states, a rushed decision would probably result in a decision to terminate where a bit of time for research results in a different decision, once people have discovered the amount of support available.
    Thing is, many (most?) downs people need lifelong support. After the early years this drops away for all but the most severe cases. I have an adult younger brother with severe disabilities (not downs) and have seen first hand how those with what the system classes as “moderate” disabilities have struggled for support as adults. This has got so much worse since 2010.

    We can, and should, do better as a society to support these individuals, but the costs for the taxpayer are high. I think it’s worth it. Many, particularly on the right, would rather bank a tax cut than pay the costs.

    That’s the reality.

    It’s the reality that needs to be presented to prospective mothers of downs pregnancies.

    Cute kids turn into demanding adults and the support is limited.

    Termination is a tough decision and I support whatever decision mothers make.

    Termination near-birth does seem somehow morally wrong, though.
    You may be surprised how many people, nominally of the right, agree with you about thhe State providing resources for social care for such people.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,216
    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    SKS's essay seems to have vanished more or less without trace already. SFAICS it contains nothing except self evident general desires for a slightly better world. Has anyone spotted anything interesting in it?

    I posted a point made by Stephen Bush earlier this morning - about what it did not contain. Somewhere down below, about 9 am-ish.
    Yes, thanks. I noticed it at the time. What the excellent Stephen Bush didn't say was that the essay was brilliant, full of new ideas and made all the relevant calls about difficult choices so that we knew what SKS stood for.

    The usual suspects - BBC, Guardian, Mirror, are not giving it great prominence.

    Labour List manages this lapidary thought:

    The central point of the pamphlet is that Britain faces a choice between a country led by a Labour leader committed to equality, security, responsibility and collective action – or incompetence, selfishness, atomisation, cronyism and free-market dogma under the Tories.

    You don't say. Gosh.
    I'm pleased they got "atomization" in there. It's a word I like and it perfectly describes something about how we're going that I dislike. One does have to careful not to slide into "old fart" or "guru of grim" territory with it though.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,777
    Farooq said:

    tlg86 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    I think "Ground C" abortion (99% of terminations) should probably be reduced to 16 weeks maximum though. I can't think of a good justification for aborting a healthy 23 week foetus.
    I can think of one: if the woman chooses it.
    If that's the argument, why not 28, 30 or 35 weeks ?
    Why not indeed. Not a decision I'd recommend, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
    Would put the doctors and nurses in an interesting position...
    Doctors and nurses should be allowed to personally refuse to carry out terminations if they want.
    They are allowed to refuse...
  • TOPPING said:

    MrEd said:

    TOPPING said:

    @Philip_Thompson if these shortages and upwards price pressures are a myth, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF ALDI CHAMPAGNE.

    Eh?

    (I may have mentioned this previously.)

    On a slightly less serious note, the key is inflation. What was that about going bust - slowly then all at once? Same with inflation. Pay drivers more here, pay more for inputs there and pretty soon you are in an inflationary environment. Which beast is very difficult to re-box. No grown up government can rejoice in the PB "just pay everyone more" jamboree.

    The problem is a lot of the inflation is being driven by China and there is not much we can do about it.

    So, for example, China controls around 85pc of rare metals production and is controlling exports. That is having a knock on impact on all sorts of goods. Shipping containers is all other area where China is causing a huge backlog.

    Secondly, it’s ramping us it’s gas demands just when supply is tight. Personally, I would make all the anti-frackers pay the extra energy bills households will face for their sanctimonious stance, they really are a bunch of selfish c*nts. We are where we are though.

    So the usual tools to control inflation just aren’t there unless you want to completely kill denand.
    The problem with "needing a bit of inflation" is that for a large number of workers wages won't rise hence the "inflating away the debt" and so forth is meaningless. Inflation is corrosive and while I appreciate that there are many youngsters who get their understanding of inflation from text books, in the real world it is a very malign phenomenon.
    "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"

    That great line applies to inflation too. Inflation has been in our society for years now, just not in wages or consumer prices. Some wage inflation now could cancel out the other forms of inflation that have so corroded our society for decades.
    Inflation used to be the only way endowment mortgages worked, if I remember correctly.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,620
    Farooq said:

    tlg86 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Farooq said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    The family I know that got me involved with the Special Olympics, the kids with Downs is an adult with Downs now. So things may have changed in diagnoses.

    But certain things get discovered at certain dates - plus people can want second checks, second opinions etc. With our first daughter the scan was unclear on something so we were told not to panic but to come back for a second scan at 20 weeks which we did and got an all clear. Had it not been all clear, we'd have had to make a very difficult decision and it would be good to get some time and space to be able to think calmly and sensitively on that.

    Rushing people to make decisions due to an unnecessary and artificial deadline can just rush people into making a decision they may not have made otherwise. Let people in difficult circumstances take the time to think carefully and make a fully informed decision. Treat it sensitively.
    I think "Ground C" abortion (99% of terminations) should probably be reduced to 16 weeks maximum though. I can't think of a good justification for aborting a healthy 23 week foetus.
    I can think of one: if the woman chooses it.
    If that's the argument, why not 28, 30 or 35 weeks ?
    Why not indeed. Not a decision I'd recommend, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
    Would put the doctors and nurses in an interesting position...
    Doctors and nurses should be allowed to personally refuse to carry out terminations if they want.
    Ummm, I was thinking more about allowing abortion at the point where the baby is very much alive when it is extracted from the mother. Good luck getting medical professionals to just leave a child to die.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614
    Sandpit said:

    ping said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    Appalled that the judiciary and the government are still allowing abortions for disabled babies after 24 weeks.

    Time to end this inequality and for the government to step up and change the law
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-58662846

    What do you think the limit should be for downs terminations?

    Genuine question. I don’t know myself.
    He's a zealot that wants to interfere in other people's right to choose.

    There shouldn't be a limit. People should have the right to make the informed decision themselves if they wish to have a child with Down's and that decision be sensitively taken and seriously considered and shouldn't be rushed due to artificial deadlines.
    You are equally a pro choice zealot who would allow abortion up to birth for all babies
    What purpose does forcing a pregnant woman to rush a decision on whether to abort to 22 weeks without taking advice or getting education on the subject serve?

    I have done volunteering work with the Special Olympics so this is something I'm familiar with. Family I know with a Down's child said quite frankly that when they got the diagnosis at the 20 week scan they considered an abortion but went and spoke to charities and families with Down's children and made the decision they wanted to proceed with the pregnancy.

    Compelling people to rush the decision without stopping to think about it might not have the effect you desire.
    It's unusual Downs would be picked up that late I think now? - but still a possibility as your post indicates. A 24 week rule makes sense in that case, even though 99% of abortions for Downs (And other trisomy) would I hope be picked up at 11-14 weeks.
    The issue with a 16 week rule would be denying the choice to the desperately unlucky couple that have a late trisomy diagnosis.
    Somethings are missed in early scans.

    We didn't know if Twin A had a spine because her position (and that of twin B ) during all our scans meant it was impossible for the nurse to see.

    And as Philip states, a rushed decision would probably result in a decision to terminate where a bit of time for research results in a different decision, once people have discovered the amount of support available.
    Thing is, many (most?) downs people need lifelong support. After the early years this drops away for all but the most severe cases. I have an adult younger brother with severe disabilities (not downs) and have seen first hand how those with what the system classes as “moderate” disabilities have struggled for support as adults. This has got so much worse since 2010.

    We can, and should, do better as a society to support these individuals, but the costs for the taxpayer are high. I think it’s worth it. Many, particularly on the right, would rather bank a tax cut than pay the costs.

    That’s the reality.

    It’s the reality that needs to be presented to prospective mothers of downs pregnancies.

    Cute kids turn into demanding adults and the support is limited.

    Termination is a tough decision and I support whatever decision mothers make.

    Termination near-birth does seem somehow morally wrong, though.
    You may be surprised how many people, nominally of the right, agree with you about thhe State providing resources for social care for such people.
    Indeed, I suspect only ultra libertarians would be opposed and they are a minority even on the right
This discussion has been closed.