Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
How dare you malign the great British Leyland - how can you forget the Allegro?
Ah, the Allegro, designed and first produced by the non-nationalised BL. We certainly showed those Trabant and Lada Johnies what private enterprise could do!
Given the Unions at the time were behaving like the UK was behind the Iron Curtain the comparison is probably apt.
On energy, I had an idea that we should vastly overbuild wind - but encourage large commercial (And some larger homes as we get more potential 'excess' electricity) to have an electric combi-boiler as well as a gas combi so when it's windy we switch over to use less overall gas in the mix (And when it's quiet use gas).
In the era of nationalised industries our energy networks (gas, electricity) were "over-engineered", so that gas storage for example would cater for a "one-in-a-hundred-year" event. That philosophy was deprecated when competition and "market forces" came in. Now we have so-called energy suppliers which are really marketing vehicles. There is no longer any room for redundancy and everything is on fine margins with these suppliers offering fixed price contracts while buying the energy in fluctuating markets. Four years ago Centrica decommissioned the Rough storage facility, which was a depleted gas field in the North Sea. Now there's talk of bringing it back to life. Too late now for the current crisis. But I like your idea of building redundancy right into domestic heating with dual combi-boilers. It could be an opportunity for the very capable boiler manufacturers. I have just installed a new boiler which is ready to switch to a gas/hydrogen mixture.
My gas usage was 12.8 kwh and my electric 4.2 kwh last year. For a typical household the gas usage, in terms of KwH is still much higher - and still cheaper. If we could produce 100 GW of electricity via wind then not only would our current electricity consumption be entirely wind generated, but we could also substantially reduce our natural gas usage - as the "extra" could head into electric combis. And when it's not so windy, we still have a substantial wind production - but we just use natural gas as we do now.
Like cheap overnight electricity in storage radiators in the olden days.
Can someone explain something to me? The energy companies not about to go bust are in a good position because, as I understand it, they hedged against price spikes. Is that right?
If so, what form does that hedging take? Is it a future promise to buy energy at a certain rate? If so, do those sorts of contracts specify quantities?
What I'm getting at here is, if an doing-well provider suddenly acquires shitloads of new customers, is that going to drag them into the same mire, because now they need to buy more wholesale at unhedged prices? Is there a risk that some customers will just not be wanted, and are left in a limbo where they officially don't have a provider?
This is what the Government intervention is about, and I think it's warranted - the likes of Scottish Power, SSE, British Gas! will have hedged for existing customers but not new ones. And as the true cost of the new customer is over the cap...
The fact
i) The cap is gov't imposed ii) The customer is gov't imposed
Means the Gov't needs to stump up for the loss on each customer basically.
I think the new customers are acquired on SVT.
what is SVT?
Standard Variable Tariff.
ie they should not be initially lossmaking (unless the Price Cap is seriously out of whack).
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
How dare you malign the great British Leyland - how can you forget the Allegro?
Ah, the Allegro, designed and first produced by the non-nationalised BL. We certainly showed those Trabant and Lada Johnies what private enterprise could do!
Given the Unions at the time were behaving like the UK was behind the Iron Curtain the comparison is probably apt.
Yep, the one thing I've always associated with the countries behind the Iron Curtain is trade unions holding their management and governments to ransom.
Not sure if Red Robbo and his pals had anything much to do with product design.
'Brothers, are we agreed, 20 minute tea breaks and a square steering wheel for the Allegro? All in favour, say aye.'
Glad to announce a new partnership with the US to help vaccinate the world.
We aim for a 70% global vaccination rate by #UNGA 2022.
European Union United States Global Vaccination Partnership will help expand supply, improve coordination in delivery and remove bottlenecks to supply chains.
Can someone explain something to me? The energy companies not about to go bust are in a good position because, as I understand it, they hedged against price spikes. Is that right?
If so, what form does that hedging take? Is it a future promise to buy energy at a certain rate? If so, do those sorts of contracts specify quantities?
What I'm getting at here is, if an doing-well provider suddenly acquires shitloads of new customers, is that going to drag them into the same mire, because now they need to buy more wholesale at unhedged prices? Is there a risk that some customers will just not be wanted, and are left in a limbo where they officially don't have a provider?
This is what the Government intervention is about, and I think it's warranted - the likes of Scottish Power, SSE, British Gas! will have hedged for existing customers but not new ones. And as the true cost of the new customer is over the cap...
The fact
i) The cap is gov't imposed ii) The customer is gov't imposed
Means the Gov't needs to stump up for the loss on each customer basically.
I think the new customers are acquired on SVT.
what is SVT?
Standard Variable Tariff.
I briefly read the SVT as STV and didn't know whether to be excited or horrified
Everything is heading down, apart from cases in the younger unvaccinated groups. The 15-19 group continues to move down to follow the curves of the other vaccinated groups.
Good, hopefully it'll encourage people to go to organised displays.
Honestly, I'm tired of the Guardian trying to be righteous on stuff that it either wouldn't have given a toss about prior to Brexit, or even worse, would have probably dismissed as an irrelevance or nuisance.
Just to add to this (sorry for the double post but I had to go and look this up), it's less than a year since The Guardian was complaining about the pollution from fireworks sold to the public. I can't take a publication seriously if it can't stick to it's values when a "let's tell everyone how stupid they were to vote for Brexit" moment comes up.
Glad to announce a new partnership with the US to help vaccinate the world.
We aim for a 70% global vaccination rate by #UNGA 2022.
European Union United States Global Vaccination Partnership will help expand supply, improve coordination in delivery and remove bottlenecks to supply chains.
They've also managed to choose a photo of Biden where the angle sets him against an EU flag. It makes Ursula von der Leyen look like a megalomaniac.
I'm a big fan of over analysing staged images comedically, but I think you may be reading too much into it.
It is his new obsession. He is a johnny-come-lately staunch advocate of "Leave", where through his newly swivelling eyes the EU is seen as the latest incarnation of global evil, though no-one seems to have let him know that the referendum has already happened and he doesn't need to demonise the EU anymore because no-one cares/can vote on it now.
Aston Villa defender Matty Cash wants to break into the Poland team ahead of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar; the 24-year-old from Slough has a Polish mother and has lodged the paperwork to apply for citizenship
I'm slightly perplexed that US healthcare would do this at all - there's presumably no intervention that can be done and the value of frequent measuring is questionable, even psychologically.* Still, I guess it's billable.
*As half of a couple that has experienced three miscarriages, the not-knowing how it's going is hard. You hope and you wait for a sign of problems, then you get a scan to confirm or disprove (in five pregnancies there has actually been an early scan due to bleeding in all five - three with bad results and two with unexpected good ones). I don't think an indicative blood test result would be particularly helpful - maybe some reassurance, but it could go bad at any point, early on.
Well apparently they are looking in the wrong place. I just went and ordered my fireworks from the same place as always - Epic Fireworks up in Manchester - and they had everything I had last year and cheaper as well. Being delivered on Monday.
Replace your bogus "bad mother monkey" story with this (which I learned only yesterday)
"Fearful memories haunt mouse descendants"
"Mouse pups — and even the offspring's offspring — can inherit a fearful association of a certain smell with pain, even if they have not experienced the pain themselves, and without the need for genetic mutations. "
YOU CAN INHERIT, FROM YOUR PARENTS, EVEN GRANDPARENTS, A SHUDDERING FEAR OF SOMETHING STRANGE THAT HAPPENED TO THEM, NOT YOU
Extraordinary. The ramifications are endless, and creepy as hell. Good for someone trying to write spooky stories, tho
I understand they show pictures of snakes and spiders to new born humans, and they scream and yell and cry, fear of these things built into human DNA, part of our nature not nurture.
But isn't this saying something different. Eg your grandad was trampled by a bull when he was a child so now YOU get terrified when you smell a bull, or something that comes from one. Seems very unlikely to me.
The Elysee denies the rumour of France giving up its UNSC seat to the EU
"Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera"
Beneath the tweet is a long long screed of angry tweets from French people saying "This is France", "This seat belongs to the French" and arguing vehemently with non-French EU citizens who see this move - the EU taking up France's role in the UN - as logical
Oh dear
No doubt a further boost for Le Pen next year as she wraps herself in the Tricolour and pushes French nationalism against what she will call the EUphile globalist Macron
Interestingly, Olaf Scholz, who is likely to be the next German Chancellor, came out in favour of this same idea 3 years ago. His proposed deal is that the chief EU representative at the UN will always be French, in return for France relinquishing - or "sharing" - the seat
Yes, that goes with the idea that Germany will effectively run EU economic policy and France will effectively run EU military and foreign policy. So it makes some sense for the Franco-German axis that runs the EU but French nationalists will still dislike it
Do any of the other 25 countries in the EU get a say in how they are governed by their French and German masters?
If they are in debt and need to borrow Germany tells them what to do and what spending to cut and taxes to raise, see Greece.
In terms of foreign policy France has effectively dictated the EU response to AUSUSUK already
Not really. Plenty of EU countries are hacked off with French posturing and tantrums. eg the Danes (eurosceptic, pro-Washington)
I imagine there are similar sentiments in several east European countries, desperate to keep the US umbrella overhead
Compare Denmark's military to France's, it is tiny by comparison.
Plus Denmark is not in the Eurozone ie the EU's inner core, anyway. The same applies to Poland and many of the Eastern European nations for whom NATO is more important
On energy, I had an idea that we should vastly overbuild wind - but encourage large commercial (And some larger homes as we get more potential 'excess' electricity) to have an electric combi-boiler as well as a gas combi so when it's windy we switch over to use less overall gas in the mix (And when it's quiet use gas).
In the era of nationalised industries our energy networks (gas, electricity) were "over-engineered", so that gas storage for example would cater for a "one-in-a-hundred-year" event. That philosophy was deprecated when competition and "market forces" came in. Now we have so-called energy suppliers which are really marketing vehicles. There is no longer any room for redundancy and everything is on fine margins with these suppliers offering fixed price contracts while buying the energy in fluctuating markets. Four years ago Centrica decommissioned the Rough storage facility, which was a depleted gas field in the North Sea. Now there's talk of bringing it back to life. Too late now for the current crisis. But I like your idea of building redundancy right into domestic heating with dual combi-boilers. It could be an opportunity for the very capable boiler manufacturers. I have just installed a new boiler which is ready to switch to a gas/hydrogen mixture.
My gas usage was 12.8 kwh and my electric 4.2 kwh last year. For a typical household the gas usage, in terms of KwH is still much higher - and still cheaper. If we could produce 100 GW of electricity via wind then not only would our current electricity consumption be entirely wind generated, but we could also substantially reduce our natural gas usage - as the "extra" could head into electric combis. And when it's not so windy, we still have a substantial wind production - but we just use natural gas as we do now.
Do you have any appliances or even ever switch a light on.
On energy, I had an idea that we should vastly overbuild wind - but encourage large commercial (And some larger homes as we get more potential 'excess' electricity) to have an electric combi-boiler as well as a gas combi so when it's windy we switch over to use less overall gas in the mix (And when it's quiet use gas).
In the era of nationalised industries our energy networks (gas, electricity) were "over-engineered", so that gas storage for example would cater for a "one-in-a-hundred-year" event. That philosophy was deprecated when competition and "market forces" came in. Now we have so-called energy suppliers which are really marketing vehicles. There is no longer any room for redundancy and everything is on fine margins with these suppliers offering fixed price contracts while buying the energy in fluctuating markets. Four years ago Centrica decommissioned the Rough storage facility, which was a depleted gas field in the North Sea. Now there's talk of bringing it back to life. Too late now for the current crisis. But I like your idea of building redundancy right into domestic heating with dual combi-boilers. It could be an opportunity for the very capable boiler manufacturers. I have just installed a new boiler which is ready to switch to a gas/hydrogen mixture.
My gas usage was 12.8 kwh and my electric 4.2 kwh last year. For a typical household the gas usage, in terms of KwH is still much higher - and still cheaper. If we could produce 100 GW of electricity via wind then not only would our current electricity consumption be entirely wind generated, but we could also substantially reduce our natural gas usage - as the "extra" could head into electric combis. And when it's not so windy, we still have a substantial wind production - but we just use natural gas as we do now.
Do you have any appliances or even ever switch a light on.
Can someone explain something to me? The energy companies not about to go bust are in a good position because, as I understand it, they hedged against price spikes. Is that right?
If so, what form does that hedging take? Is it a future promise to buy energy at a certain rate? If so, do those sorts of contracts specify quantities?
What I'm getting at here is, if an doing-well provider suddenly acquires shitloads of new customers, is that going to drag them into the same mire, because now they need to buy more wholesale at unhedged prices? Is there a risk that some customers will just not be wanted, and are left in a limbo where they officially don't have a provider?
This is what the Government intervention is about, and I think it's warranted - the likes of Scottish Power, SSE, British Gas! will have hedged for existing customers but not new ones. And as the true cost of the new customer is over the cap...
The fact
i) The cap is gov't imposed ii) The customer is gov't imposed
Means the Gov't needs to stump up for the loss on each customer basically.
I think the new customers are acquired on SVT.
what is SVT?
Standard Variable Tariff.
ie they should not be initially lossmaking (unless the Price Cap is seriously out of whack).
Which it is.
My supplier, green, has just gone bust.
I’m about to be transferred to a svt that will likely cost my new supplier ~£400 more than I pay. The shortfall is paid either by the taxpayer, or spread across all future billpayers (most likely).
This is wrong. The cap is unfair. I should be forced to pay the market rate. The only thing the govt should be doing is protecting the vulnerable (not me) by keeping the £20 UC uplift.
Edit: apologies, this is mainly a reply to @Philip_Thompson ’s post upthread.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
Public ownership for things where you can't have proper competition. Like water, trains, energy.
Ah, "public ownership", that old one. Where the people actually in charge are actually the trade unions. Where sloppy practices, incompetence and shit service are part of every consumers expectation. Some of us lived through those times. Any of the crappiness of the privatised utilities does not come anywhere near.
Why would that be the case? Public ownership just means govt owning most of the shares. We can have the same people in charge as now if you think they do such a good job.
Public ownership in Britain has always meant politicians and civil servants interfering with the production and the services. It has meant underinvestment because politicians have no interest in long term decision making only what will get them to the next election. As has already pointed out BR, BT and the like were deeply crap when they were in the public sector and have massively improved since privatisation.
Only met one FTSE100 boss. He was very explicit his time horizon for getting results was 3-6 months, and anything beyond that wasnt getting his influence behind it.
Short termism is a problem for UK plc whether public or private sector.
Well apparently they are looking in the wrong place. I just went and ordered my fireworks from the same place as always - Epic Fireworks up in Manchester - and they had everything I had last year and cheaper as well. Being delivered on Monday.
Fireworks are made in Asia, so just like all these stories, the core issue is shipping containers and cargo ships are all in the wrong places, docks are backed up etc.
E.g. More than 70 cargo ships queue outside Los Angeles and Long Beach ports amid surge in US imports
Interesting tit bit, apparently Chinese economic output in raw number of items is down because again COVID has screwed up the whole chain for them too.
On Topic, how does this chart compare with previous Presidents. I assume they pretty much all fall out of favour at some point. Is 8 months faster or slower than normal?
Biden's numbers aren't great, but they're not awful either. I think the comparisons are hard, though, because of how much more partisan politics has become.
Ironic that Farage recognises the diminished influence of "global Britain".
Also kind of confused that a deal between the EU and the US means that Biden has stabbed Boris in the back. As far as I am aware no one (excepting perhaps La Farage) has ever claimed that the UK had any right to exclusive deals with any other country in the world. If the EU and US are pooling resources for a vital issue like vaccine production then bloody good news.
On the energy front I checked my OVO account yesterday. It showed I was in credit by £450. There was a useful box attached to tick if I wanted to change my monthly direct debit. Duly ticked it suggested I pay £5 per month for the rest of the contract until December. I agreed.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Where is the logic that the man in Whitehall knows best? The reality is that "public ownership" is a misnomer. The public have absolutely no ownership because they have no control. It is pointless ownership. In the past the real "owners" were the trades unions. The nationalised companies were run not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the employees of the company -it could be argued that this is the case with "Our" NHS (God bless her and all who sail in her, they can do no wrong). If regulation is applied correctly there is no reason to hose taxpayers money at nationalised industries, that are almost inevitably, badly run and inefficient.
But we're not in the 70s now. Plenty of things were done badly in the 70s but are done well now. There's no reason publicly owned utilities and transport shouldn't be another of them. It's clear this energy "market" is a nonsense. The case for a rationalized, consolidated, simpler, safer, more efficient model is compelling. You can't go rejecting that out of hand due to childhood memories of Jack Jones and Hughie Scanlon.
On Topic, how does this chart compare with previous Presidents. I assume they pretty much all fall out of favour at some point. Is 8 months faster or slower than normal?
Biden's current rating is lower than every US President's at this stage for the last 50 years except Trump and Ford
Aston Villa defender Matty Cash wants to break into the Poland team ahead of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar; the 24-year-old from Slough has a Polish mother and has lodged the paperwork to apply for citizenship
I blame Brexit....something something about red and white boots being a subtle nod...etc etc etc...
About 10 of the top 20 right backs in the world are qualified for England at the moment, it is bizarre. No wonder we are exporting them, Wan-Bissaka likely to choose Congo is another one.
Ironic that Farage recognises the diminished influence of "global Britain".
Also kind of confused that a deal between the EU and the US means that Biden has stabbed Boris in the back. As far as I am aware no one (excepting perhaps La Farage) has ever claimed that the UK had any right to exclusive deals with any other country in the world. If the EU and US are pooling resources for a vital issue like vaccine production then bloody good news.
The ramping up of the rhetoric over AUUKUS probably hasn't helped. Elements of the British Right clearly got carried away.
Replace your bogus "bad mother monkey" story with this (which I learned only yesterday)
"Fearful memories haunt mouse descendants"
"Mouse pups — and even the offspring's offspring — can inherit a fearful association of a certain smell with pain, even if they have not experienced the pain themselves, and without the need for genetic mutations. "
YOU CAN INHERIT, FROM YOUR PARENTS, EVEN GRANDPARENTS, A SHUDDERING FEAR OF SOMETHING STRANGE THAT HAPPENED TO THEM, NOT YOU
Extraordinary. The ramifications are endless, and creepy as hell. Good for someone trying to write spooky stories, tho
I understand they show pictures of snakes and spiders to new born humans, and they scream and yell and cry, fear of these things built into human DNA, part of our nature not nurture.
But isn't this saying something different. Eg your grandad was trampled by a bull when he was a child so now YOU get terrified when you smell a bull, or something that comes from one. Seems very unlikely to me.
Unlikely but possible. Genes can be changed while you're alive, we know that already.
If we've evolved an ability to record emotionally scarring genetic memories then that ability could be a good survival mechanism that would be selected via evolution. So those ancestors who developed the ability to warn their descendents via their own genetic memories would be more likely to pass on their genes.
Aston Villa defender Matty Cash wants to break into the Poland team ahead of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar; the 24-year-old from Slough has a Polish mother and has lodged the paperwork to apply for citizenship
I blame Brexit....something something about red and white boots being a subtle nod...etc etc etc...
About 10 of the top 20 right backs in the world are qualified for England at the moment, it is bizarre. No wonder we are exporting them, Wan-Bissaka likely to choose Congo is another one.
It isn't just right backs, England could put out an incredibly strong 3rd XI with all the talent at the moment. There is talk more will choose other countries like Hudson-Odoi, despite having represented England, because little propsect of getting in the team. Even some mutterings Greenwood might.
Mr. Thompson, I recall, vaguely, a plant study that found plants could access the genetic codes going back two or three generations (thought to be useful in case they need to alter their strategy to survive due to changes in the environment).
Ironic that Farage recognises the diminished influence of "global Britain".
Also kind of confused that a deal between the EU and the US means that Biden has stabbed Boris in the back. As far as I am aware no one (excepting perhaps La Farage) has ever claimed that the UK had any right to exclusive deals with any other country in the world. If the EU and US are pooling resources for a vital issue like vaccine production then bloody good news.
Ignoring Farage as a loon is in general a jolly good idea.
Well apparently they are looking in the wrong place. I just went and ordered my fireworks from the same place as always - Epic Fireworks up in Manchester - and they had everything I had last year and cheaper as well. Being delivered on Monday.
May be surplus stock because Germany banned fireworks.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Where is the logic that the man in Whitehall knows best? The reality is that "public ownership" is a misnomer. The public have absolutely no ownership because they have no control. It is pointless ownership. In the past the real "owners" were the trades unions. The nationalised companies were run not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the employees of the company -it could be argued that this is the case with "Our" NHS (God bless her and all who sail in her, they can do no wrong). If regulation is applied correctly there is no reason to hose taxpayers money at nationalised industries, that are almost inevitably, badly run and inefficient.
But we're not in the 70s now. Plenty of things were done badly in the 70s but are done well now. There's no reason publicly owned utilities and transport shouldn't be another of them. It's clear this energy "market" is a nonsense. The case for a rationalized, consolidated, simpler, safer, more efficient model is compelling. You can't go rejecting that out of hand due to childhood memories of Jack Jones and Hughie Scanlon.
The other half of the problem was that the nationalised industries were run to the advantage of the administrative and political system, rather than the customers.
More people try and use the railways? But that would mean needing to invest more money. Much simpler to raise ticket prices to reduce demand.
Need to invest to upgrade to more modern machinery to reduce costs? But that would reduce employment in constituency X. Much easier to subsidise until the next election - cheaper in the short term....
Well apparently they are looking in the wrong place. I just went and ordered my fireworks from the same place as always - Epic Fireworks up in Manchester - and they had everything I had last year and cheaper as well. Being delivered on Monday.
May be surplus stock because Germany banned fireworks.
Can someone explain something to me? The energy companies not about to go bust are in a good position because, as I understand it, they hedged against price spikes. Is that right?
If so, what form does that hedging take? Is it a future promise to buy energy at a certain rate? If so, do those sorts of contracts specify quantities?
What I'm getting at here is, if an doing-well provider suddenly acquires shitloads of new customers, is that going to drag them into the same mire, because now they need to buy more wholesale at unhedged prices? Is there a risk that some customers will just not be wanted, and are left in a limbo where they officially don't have a provider?
This is what the Government intervention is about, and I think it's warranted - the likes of Scottish Power, SSE, British Gas! will have hedged for existing customers but not new ones. And as the true cost of the new customer is over the cap...
The fact
i) The cap is gov't imposed ii) The customer is gov't imposed
Means the Gov't needs to stump up for the loss on each customer basically.
I think the new customers are acquired on SVT.
what is SVT?
Standard Variable Tariff.
ie they should not be initially lossmaking (unless the Price Cap is seriously out of whack).
Which it is.
I’m about to be transferred to a svt that will cost my new supplier ~£400 more than I pay. The shortfall is paid either by the taxpayer, or spread across all future billpayers (most likely).
This is wrong. The cap is unfair. I should be forced to pay the market rate. The only thing the govt should be doing is protecting the vulnerable (not me) by keeping the £20 up uplift.
Edit: apologies, this is mainly a reply to @Philip_Thompson ’s post upthread.
Why don't you volunteer to pay some vulnerable person's bills for them? I'm sure you'll be able to find someone to take your money.
How do you know if they do or don't do this already? Most people who donate to charity don't mention it every time they post a political viewpoint, as it is rightly a private matter.
Glad to announce a new partnership with the US to help vaccinate the world.
We aim for a 70% global vaccination rate by #UNGA 2022.
European Union United States Global Vaccination Partnership will help expand supply, improve coordination in delivery and remove bottlenecks to supply chains.
They've also managed to choose a photo of Biden where the angle sets him against an EU flag. It makes Ursula von der Leyen look like a megalomaniac.
I'm a big fan of over analysing staged images comedically, but I think you may be reading too much into it.
No we havent had a flag-gate variation for at least a month. This analysis is long overdue.
In that case...
Boris is in the top left position, occupying the 'Lawful Good' position of an alignment chart, but his uncomfortable expression and posture indicates this is not a position that sits well with him, he knows he does not belong.
The chap below him I do not know, and that he has been denied both an image with his own flag, or even a courtesy EU flag like Widodo below him, shows that this was the intention - he's there to make up the numbers, and his face shows clearly he is not happy about that.
Trudeau is rewarded for being an internationally recognised liberal with two of his own flags, with the hand of friendship offered by two EU flags as well, the hand of freidnship extended to the anglophone and francophone communities of Canada. He is shown closer to the flag on our left, indicating he may need to appeal to NDP support in the coming years. The bottles of water are included to remind people of the importance of water supply in the world, even as people focus on Covid.
Biden is shown with EU flag swarming up behind an EU flag, a veiled reference to how shabbily he has just treated an EU Member
Draghi (?) occupies pride of place directly in UvdL's eyeline, as a fellow EU member, but the flag occupies the first part of the image she will see - a subtle reminder that the EU comes before nations or individuals. His downcast expression is in judgement of Biden, below, showing the EU is the rising power.
The lady in the top centre with a head tie has a very satisfied expression, knowing she will get first viewing from someone going from top to bottom. Judging from her position between the UK and Italy, I assume she must in fact be Macron in disguise.
Ursula von der Leyen looms over it all like Galactus waiting to swallow them all, but the distance from the inset images shows that this is an aspiration only, that the EU must grow stronger and larger still to realise its ambitions - it has a way to go.
...And I've run out of material for the other two.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Where is the logic that the man in Whitehall knows best? The reality is that "public ownership" is a misnomer. The public have absolutely no ownership because they have no control. It is pointless ownership. In the past the real "owners" were the trades unions. The nationalised companies were run not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the employees of the company -it could be argued that this is the case with "Our" NHS (God bless her and all who sail in her, they can do no wrong). If regulation is applied correctly there is no reason to hose taxpayers money at nationalised industries, that are almost inevitably, badly run and inefficient.
But we're not in the 70s now. Plenty of things were done badly in the 70s but are done well now. There's no reason publicly owned utilities and transport shouldn't be another of them. It's clear this energy "market" is a nonsense. The case for a rationalized, consolidated, simpler, safer, more efficient model is compelling. You can't go rejecting that out of hand due to childhood memories of Jack Jones and Hughie Scanlon.
There is a reason why so many things were done badly in the 1970s: nationalised industries. If government was bonkers enough to take utilities back into "public ownership", how would you recommend the shareholders (a large number of pension funds) would be compensated? Taxpayers money? And for what benefit? So that you could say, ohhhh that feels nice! That would be ideology that makes Brexit look like uber-rationality. Better and more robust regulation is the answer. Nationalisation has been tried and tested and failed every time.
Ironic that Farage recognises the diminished influence of "global Britain".
Also kind of confused that a deal between the EU and the US means that Biden has stabbed Boris in the back. As far as I am aware no one (excepting perhaps La Farage) has ever claimed that the UK had any right to exclusive deals with any other country in the world. If the EU and US are pooling resources for a vital issue like vaccine production then bloody good news.
Nigel Farage is waking up to the fact that he only achieved any heights in politics because of dissatisfaction with the big three on the EU issue. Now that Brexit has shot his fox, he is desperately searching around for something else he can use to generate outrage, including ridiculous stretches like this. But the Great British public is actually a moderate bunch that sees through such crap. That is why Farage is trying to get bigger in the US, which has a much larger number of mugs.
Aston Villa defender Matty Cash wants to break into the Poland team ahead of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar; the 24-year-old from Slough has a Polish mother and has lodged the paperwork to apply for citizenship
I blame Brexit....something something about red and white boots being a subtle nod...etc etc etc...
About 10 of the top 20 right backs in the world are qualified for England at the moment, it is bizarre. No wonder we are exporting them, Wan-Bissaka likely to choose Congo is another one.
It isn't just right backs, England could put out an incredibly strong 3rd XI with all the talent at the moment. There is talk more will choose other countries like Hudson-Odoi, despite having represented England, because little propsect of getting in the team.
That sounds like Mercedes F1 team having five drivers chasing two seats - you have one dead cert so long as he wants it, two good but different choices for the second seat, and two guys hoping to get a seat anywhere else, if it keeps them in the top-tier championship.
On energy, I had an idea that we should vastly overbuild wind - but encourage large commercial (And some larger homes as we get more potential 'excess' electricity) to have an electric combi-boiler as well as a gas combi so when it's windy we switch over to use less overall gas in the mix (And when it's quiet use gas).
In the era of nationalised industries our energy networks (gas, electricity) were "over-engineered", so that gas storage for example would cater for a "one-in-a-hundred-year" event. That philosophy was deprecated when competition and "market forces" came in. Now we have so-called energy suppliers which are really marketing vehicles. There is no longer any room for redundancy and everything is on fine margins with these suppliers offering fixed price contracts while buying the energy in fluctuating markets. Four years ago Centrica decommissioned the Rough storage facility, which was a depleted gas field in the North Sea. Now there's talk of bringing it back to life. Too late now for the current crisis. But I like your idea of building redundancy right into domestic heating with dual combi-boilers. It could be an opportunity for the very capable boiler manufacturers. I have just installed a new boiler which is ready to switch to a gas/hydrogen mixture.
My gas usage was 12.8 kwh and my electric 4.2 kwh last year. For a typical household the gas usage, in terms of KwH is still much higher - and still cheaper. If we could produce 100 GW of electricity via wind then not only would our current electricity consumption be entirely wind generated, but we could also substantially reduce our natural gas usage - as the "extra" could head into electric combis. And when it's not so windy, we still have a substantial wind production - but we just use natural gas as we do now.
Do you have any appliances or even ever switch a light on.
We have two fishtanks going 24-7, but also solar panels.
I must b emissing something , mine was 2374 Kwh electricity and 15313 Kwh gas. So assume yours in my numbers are 12800 and 4200 PS: I was going to ask what your secret was.
Can someone explain something to me? The energy companies not about to go bust are in a good position because, as I understand it, they hedged against price spikes. Is that right?
If so, what form does that hedging take? Is it a future promise to buy energy at a certain rate? If so, do those sorts of contracts specify quantities?
What I'm getting at here is, if an doing-well provider suddenly acquires shitloads of new customers, is that going to drag them into the same mire, because now they need to buy more wholesale at unhedged prices? Is there a risk that some customers will just not be wanted, and are left in a limbo where they officially don't have a provider?
This is what the Government intervention is about, and I think it's warranted - the likes of Scottish Power, SSE, British Gas! will have hedged for existing customers but not new ones. And as the true cost of the new customer is over the cap...
The fact
i) The cap is gov't imposed ii) The customer is gov't imposed
Means the Gov't needs to stump up for the loss on each customer basically.
I think the new customers are acquired on SVT.
what is SVT?
Standard Variable Tariff.
ie they should not be initially lossmaking (unless the Price Cap is seriously out of whack).
Which it is.
My supplier, green, has just gone bust.
I’m about to be transferred to a svt that will likely cost my new supplier ~£400 more than I pay. The shortfall is paid either by the taxpayer, or spread across all future billpayers (most likely).
This is wrong. The cap is unfair. I should be forced to pay the market rate. The only thing the govt should be doing is protecting the vulnerable (not me) by keeping the £20 UC uplift.
Edit: apologies, this is mainly a reply to @Philip_Thompson ’s post upthread.
I think I can see an extra emergency adjustment of the price cap.
But not for a month, as they wait for the first 3 week measures to bed in.
And a reverse ferret on UC, with this as the excuse, and the previous 10% salami slicing since 2015 as a further reason.
Jeezo, more tartan than a shortbread factory. Certainly looking forward to Aberdeen's cultural renaissance, though would like more evidence of the original naissance.
TBF it's been doing pretty well in the university stakes since the times of James IV. Not sure it needs a renaissance.
On energy, I had an idea that we should vastly overbuild wind - but encourage large commercial (And some larger homes as we get more potential 'excess' electricity) to have an electric combi-boiler as well as a gas combi so when it's windy we switch over to use less overall gas in the mix (And when it's quiet use gas).
In the era of nationalised industries our energy networks (gas, electricity) were "over-engineered", so that gas storage for example would cater for a "one-in-a-hundred-year" event. That philosophy was deprecated when competition and "market forces" came in. Now we have so-called energy suppliers which are really marketing vehicles. There is no longer any room for redundancy and everything is on fine margins with these suppliers offering fixed price contracts while buying the energy in fluctuating markets. Four years ago Centrica decommissioned the Rough storage facility, which was a depleted gas field in the North Sea. Now there's talk of bringing it back to life. Too late now for the current crisis. But I like your idea of building redundancy right into domestic heating with dual combi-boilers. It could be an opportunity for the very capable boiler manufacturers. I have just installed a new boiler which is ready to switch to a gas/hydrogen mixture.
My gas usage was 12.8 kwh and my electric 4.2 kwh last year. For a typical household the gas usage, in terms of KwH is still much higher - and still cheaper. If we could produce 100 GW of electricity via wind then not only would our current electricity consumption be entirely wind generated, but we could also substantially reduce our natural gas usage - as the "extra" could head into electric combis. And when it's not so windy, we still have a substantial wind production - but we just use natural gas as we do now.
Do you have any appliances or even ever switch a light on.
Ironic that Farage recognises the diminished influence of "global Britain".
Also kind of confused that a deal between the EU and the US means that Biden has stabbed Boris in the back. As far as I am aware no one (excepting perhaps La Farage) has ever claimed that the UK had any right to exclusive deals with any other country in the world. If the EU and US are pooling resources for a vital issue like vaccine production then bloody good news.
Ignoring Farage as a loon is in general a jolly good idea.
Do we know what percentage of people are on variable utility tarrifs, as opposed to those fixed a year ahead?
In other words, how salient is the actual issue with the public, when the bills arrive at the end of the month?
Still going to be at least 8% affected (ie those whose fixed year tariff expires in month n, assuming everyone is on a 1 year tariff, edit: which is absurd). And I imagine quite a few of the poorer people won't be on fixed tariffs - lodgers, hose sharers, people who have to prepay.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Ironic that Farage recognises the diminished influence of "global Britain".
Also kind of confused that a deal between the EU and the US means that Biden has stabbed Boris in the back. As far as I am aware no one (excepting perhaps La Farage) has ever claimed that the UK had any right to exclusive deals with any other country in the world. If the EU and US are pooling resources for a vital issue like vaccine production then bloody good news.
The ramping up of the rhetoric over AUUKUS probably hasn't helped. Elements of the British Right clearly got carried away.
I haven't heard much of that TBH. Can you identify? AFAICS they are hunkered down as with the EuCo assault on AZ. "Nothing to do with us, Gov."
The megaphone diplomacy seems to be from Macron attention-seeking and electioneering for next spring under pressure from Le Pen, and from the bits of the EU that are falling for his schtick.
I think more appropriately they need to be working on how the EuCo is going to create a viable EU Defence Force (or whatever it is called). As a semi-detached member of NATO for decades, France is perhaps well-placed.
But UVDL the Useless, the great European Commission arse-protector, was German Defence Minister from 2013 to 2019, when Germany manage to reduce their operational submarines from six to one, avoidedd taking a crucial decision on what was to replace Tornado Batch One (for which they are in a pickle now), and God knows what else. So I am not very hopeful.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
Public ownership for things where you can't have proper competition. Like water, trains, energy.
Ah, "public ownership", that old one. Where the people actually in charge are actually the trade unions. Where sloppy practices, incompetence and shit service are part of every consumers expectation. Some of us lived through those times. Any of the crappiness of the privatised utilities does not come anywhere near.
Why would that be the case? Public ownership just means govt owning most of the shares. We can have the same people in charge as now if you think they do such a good job.
Public ownership in Britain has always meant politicians and civil servants interfering with the production and the services. It has meant underinvestment because politicians have no interest in long term decision making only what will get them to the next election. As has already pointed out BR, BT and the like were deeply crap when they were in the public sector and have massively improved since privatisation.
Only met one FTSE100 boss. He was very explicit his time horizon for getting results was 3-6 months, and anything beyond that wasnt getting his influence behind it.
Short termism is a problem for UK plc whether public or private sector.
Not in any of the businesses I have worked in.
In my first job - telecoms - the horizon was about 3-5 years In my second job - oil industry - the horizon was 10-25 years. There were longer contracts - one was planned (but not implemented) that would have be 50 years.
Do we know what percentage of people are on variable utility tarrifs, as opposed to those fixed a year ahead?
In other words, how salient is the actual issue with the public, when the bills arrive at the end of the month?
Still going to be at least 8% affected (ie those whose fixed year tariff expires in month n, assuming everyone is on a 1 year tariff, edit: which is absurd). And I imagine quite a few of the poorer people won't be on fixed tariffs - lodgers, hose sharers, people who have to prepay.
Your typo of 'hose sharers' reminds me of an award-winning gag from the Edinburgh Fringe one year:
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Where is the logic that the man in Whitehall knows best? The reality is that "public ownership" is a misnomer. The public have absolutely no ownership because they have no control. It is pointless ownership. In the past the real "owners" were the trades unions. The nationalised companies were run not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the employees of the company -it could be argued that this is the case with "Our" NHS (God bless her and all who sail in her, they can do no wrong). If regulation is applied correctly there is no reason to hose taxpayers money at nationalised industries, that are almost inevitably, badly run and inefficient.
But we're not in the 70s now. Plenty of things were done badly in the 70s but are done well now. There's no reason publicly owned utilities and transport shouldn't be another of them. It's clear this energy "market" is a nonsense. The case for a rationalized, consolidated, simpler, safer, more efficient model is compelling. You can't go rejecting that out of hand due to childhood memories of Jack Jones and Hughie Scanlon.
What (state run) things were we doing badly in the 70s that we're doing well now?
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
LOL, so they could only keep it up (fnar fnar!) for about ten days, during which time the President was in the US and surely missing the ambassador in his delegation.
Ironic that Farage recognises the diminished influence of "global Britain".
Also kind of confused that a deal between the EU and the US means that Biden has stabbed Boris in the back. As far as I am aware no one (excepting perhaps La Farage) has ever claimed that the UK had any right to exclusive deals with any other country in the world. If the EU and US are pooling resources for a vital issue like vaccine production then bloody good news.
The ramping up of the rhetoric over AUUKUS probably hasn't helped. Elements of the British Right clearly got carried away.
I haven't heard much of that TBH. Can you identify? AFAICS they are hunkered down as with the EuCo assault on AZ. "Nothing to do with us, Gov."
The megaphone diplomacy seems to be from Macron attention-seeking and electioneering for next spring under pressure from Le Pen, and from the bits of the EU that are falling for his schtick.
I think more appropriately they need to be working on how the EuCo is going to create a viable EU Defence Force (or whatever it is called). As a semi-detached member of NATO for decades, France is perhaps well-placed.
But UVDL the Useless, the great European Commission arse-protector, was German Defence Minister from 2013 to 2019, when Germany manage to reduce their operational submarines from six to one, avoidedd taking a crucial decision on what was to replace Tornado Batch One (for which they are in a pickle now), and God knows what else. So I am not very hopeful.
"God knows what else" - she was so concentrated on improving the German armed forces social and cultural internal structure.... that she entirely missed an upsurge in honest-to-god Nazis in the military....
Oh and picked a contractual fight with the best gun company on the planet, on the basis that their guns were crap. And got her head handed to her in court...
Replace your bogus "bad mother monkey" story with this (which I learned only yesterday)
"Fearful memories haunt mouse descendants"
"Mouse pups — and even the offspring's offspring — can inherit a fearful association of a certain smell with pain, even if they have not experienced the pain themselves, and without the need for genetic mutations. "
YOU CAN INHERIT, FROM YOUR PARENTS, EVEN GRANDPARENTS, A SHUDDERING FEAR OF SOMETHING STRANGE THAT HAPPENED TO THEM, NOT YOU
Extraordinary. The ramifications are endless, and creepy as hell. Good for someone trying to write spooky stories, tho
I understand they show pictures of snakes and spiders to new born humans, and they scream and yell and cry, fear of these things built into human DNA, part of our nature not nurture.
But isn't this saying something different. Eg your grandad was trampled by a bull when he was a child so now YOU get terrified when you smell a bull, or something that comes from one. Seems very unlikely to me.
Unlikely but possible. Genes can be changed while you're alive, we know that already.
If we've evolved an ability to record emotionally scarring genetic memories then that ability could be a good survival mechanism that would be selected via evolution. So those ancestors who developed the ability to warn their descendents via their own genetic memories would be more likely to pass on their genes.
It's all about smell, which IS the most evocative sense, but I still find it unlikely. Eg there's a smell that has an unnerving impact on me, plasticine. When I get a whiff of that it triggers odd and unpleasant feelings; the actual aroma is nice, so it's not that, it's more like a deeply ingrained association of this smell, plasticine, with something menacing. But I bet this is just a kink in my brain rather than anything to do with what my forebears did. Although plasticine was invented a long time ago (1897) so it's possible that one of my grandparents had a run-in with it.
Jeezo, more tartan than a shortbread factory. Certainly looking forward to Aberdeen's cultural renaissance, though would like more evidence of the original naissance.
Aberdeen really was a shithole when I first went up there in the late 80s. It was suffering a huge hangover from the first oil boom and crash and simultaneously was metaphorically waking up next to some dodgy looking bird it had thought looked fantastic the night before but now looked a lot different in the cold light of day.
I was there for a couple of years and then left for warmer climes (North Africa and the Middle East) and then much colder climes (Norway). When I returned in around 2010 I mentioned to my wife (who had also worked offshore for a decade) that it had changed into a really nice city with loads of good venues, restaurants and bars and a really good feel to it. That view has only increased in the decade I have worked there off and on since. Even if I don't like travelling for work, I genuinely look forward to spending a week or two in Aberdeen and would recommend it to anyone looking for a quiet weekend away somewhere.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
Heh, well we provide a pretty good balanced sample of opinions!
So, should I urgently trade out my position on Starmer as next PM (currently would be a profit) which is based on my opinion that he and Johnson will fight the next election and his odds still have further to come in?
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
Public ownership for things where you can't have proper competition. Like water, trains, energy.
Ah, "public ownership", that old one. Where the people actually in charge are actually the trade unions. Where sloppy practices, incompetence and shit service are part of every consumers expectation. Some of us lived through those times. Any of the crappiness of the privatised utilities does not come anywhere near.
The actual energy backbone - National Grid - is publicly owned, and there's zero competition in the domestic water supply market - so the likes of Severn Trent are as good as. As @MaxPB said all the energy companies are are brands, a website and a call centre attached.
National Grid is not publicly owned. It is a private company (of which I am a tiny shareholder).
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
Public ownership for things where you can't have proper competition. Like water, trains, energy.
Ah, "public ownership", that old one. Where the people actually in charge are actually the trade unions. Where sloppy practices, incompetence and shit service are part of every consumers expectation. Some of us lived through those times. Any of the crappiness of the privatised utilities does not come anywhere near.
Why would that be the case? Public ownership just means govt owning most of the shares. We can have the same people in charge as now if you think they do such a good job.
Public ownership in Britain has always meant politicians and civil servants interfering with the production and the services. It has meant underinvestment because politicians have no interest in long term decision making only what will get them to the next election. As has already pointed out BR, BT and the like were deeply crap when they were in the public sector and have massively improved since privatisation.
Only met one FTSE100 boss. He was very explicit his time horizon for getting results was 3-6 months, and anything beyond that wasnt getting his influence behind it.
Short termism is a problem for UK plc whether public or private sector.
Not in any of the businesses I have worked in.
In my first job - telecoms - the horizon was about 3-5 years In my second job - oil industry - the horizon was 10-25 years. There were longer contracts - one was planned (but not implemented) that would have be 50 years.
Yep as a basic standard in the oil industry the horizon is generally a minimum of 10 years because that's how long it takes to get from licence award, appraisal and development through to plateau and CoP on even the smallest of fields. More generally it is in the 20-25 year range. This is why Norway has always been a better place for oil companies to do business than the UK. They may have higher overall taxation regimes but they understand that what oil companies want is stability. When a field development takes 10-15 years you don't want the Government changing all the rules every 3 or 4 years - which is exactly what the UK Government does continuously.
Jeezo, more tartan than a shortbread factory. Certainly looking forward to Aberdeen's cultural renaissance, though would like more evidence of the original naissance.
TBF it's been doing pretty well in the university stakes since the times of James IV. Not sure it needs a renaissance.
I was tootling about Old Aberdeen & associated campus with a friend in a wheelchair last week and it is pleasant if a little ghost-townish. As someone brought up in Aberdeen it's cultural influence always seemed somewhat muted on the rest of the city. A place I didn't know about is the Cruickshank Botanic Gardens, also very nice if not ideal for a wheelchair beginner.
Now back in Germany enjoying dinner in Freiburg DomPlatz. Election fever is, well, not obvious, although Merkel is in the news for her latest speech. The parties' slogans are as dull as their politics, "for you in parliament", "for stability", etc. Although the AfD has "your country, your rules", but unlike the others their candidates don't brave being photographed for the posters.
Jeezo, more tartan than a shortbread factory. Certainly looking forward to Aberdeen's cultural renaissance, though would like more evidence of the original naissance.
TBF it's been doing pretty well in the university stakes since the times of James IV. Not sure it needs a renaissance.
I was tootling about Old Aberdeen & associated campus with a friend in a wheelchair last week and it is pleasant if a little ghost-townish. As someone brought up in Aberdeen it's cultural influence always seemed somewhat muted on the rest of the city. A place I didn't know about is the Cruickshank Botanic Gardens, also very nice if not ideal for a wheelchair beginner.
One of my favourite walks is down from Union Street to Old Aberdeen. There is the most awesome second hand bookshop on the Spital where all the graduates sell their books once they leave Uni. Great for getting obscure University texts on all manner of subjects.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Where is the logic that the man in Whitehall knows best? The reality is that "public ownership" is a misnomer. The public have absolutely no ownership because they have no control. It is pointless ownership. In the past the real "owners" were the trades unions. The nationalised companies were run not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the employees of the company -it could be argued that this is the case with "Our" NHS (God bless her and all who sail in her, they can do no wrong). If regulation is applied correctly there is no reason to hose taxpayers money at nationalised industries, that are almost inevitably, badly run and inefficient.
But we're not in the 70s now. Plenty of things were done badly in the 70s but are done well now. There's no reason publicly owned utilities and transport shouldn't be another of them. It's clear this energy "market" is a nonsense. The case for a rationalized, consolidated, simpler, safer, more efficient model is compelling. You can't go rejecting that out of hand due to childhood memories of Jack Jones and Hughie Scanlon.
There is a reason why so many things were done badly in the 1970s: nationalised industries. If government was bonkers enough to take utilities back into "public ownership", how would you recommend the shareholders (a large number of pension funds) would be compensated? Taxpayers money? And for what benefit? So that you could say, ohhhh that feels nice! That would be ideology that makes Brexit look like uber-rationality. Better and more robust regulation is the answer. Nationalisation has been tried and tested and failed every time.
No, you're doing frozen thinking and using false reverse correlation to self-justify. Eg much of the western financial system was run so badly for so long in the private sector that in 2008 - which is rather closer than the 70s - it needed a gigantic coordinated cross-border state rescue to stave off collapse. Does this mean the private sector now can't and shouldn't do banking? Course not. You must look at all of this case by case, without prejudice, from first principles, and if you do that you'll find a very solid case for public ownership of (at least) utilities and transport here in the UK in 2021. It's coming, Nigel, trust me.
Surely this should be the key measure going forward:
In hospital numbers down 13% on last Tuesday. Another week of that (which is possible based on case rates in older groups to now) puts England comfortably under 5000 for first since end of July.
Question is what happens next with current case rise (predominantly young atm)
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Where is the logic that the man in Whitehall knows best? The reality is that "public ownership" is a misnomer. The public have absolutely no ownership because they have no control. It is pointless ownership. In the past the real "owners" were the trades unions. The nationalised companies were run not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the employees of the company -it could be argued that this is the case with "Our" NHS (God bless her and all who sail in her, they can do no wrong). If regulation is applied correctly there is no reason to hose taxpayers money at nationalised industries, that are almost inevitably, badly run and inefficient.
But we're not in the 70s now. Plenty of things were done badly in the 70s but are done well now. There's no reason publicly owned utilities and transport shouldn't be another of them. It's clear this energy "market" is a nonsense. The case for a rationalized, consolidated, simpler, safer, more efficient model is compelling. You can't go rejecting that out of hand due to childhood memories of Jack Jones and Hughie Scanlon.
What (state run) things were we doing badly in the 70s that we're doing well now?
If you replace "well" with "better", essentially all of them.
If this is the reaction, @Mij_Europe, doesn’t it say more about Paris thinking too much with its gut than its head? Johnson is a wind-up merchant—that’s his schtick—partly because it distracts from his ruthlessness (in this case, costing France €€€)
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Jeezo, more tartan than a shortbread factory. Certainly looking forward to Aberdeen's cultural renaissance, though would like more evidence of the original naissance.
Aberdeen really was a shithole when I first went up there in the late 80s. It was suffering a huge hangover from the first oil boom and crash and simultaneously was metaphorically waking up next to some dodgy looking bird it had thought looked fantastic the night before but now looked a lot different in the cold light of day.
I was there for a couple of years and then left for warmer climes (North Africa and the Middle East) and then much colder climes (Norway). When I returned in around 2010 I mentioned to my wife (who had also worked offshore for a decade) that it had changed into a really nice city with loads of good venues, restaurants and bars and a really good feel to it. That view has only increased in the decade I have worked there off and on since. Even if I don't like travelling for work, I genuinely look forward to spending a week or two in Aberdeen and would recommend it to anyone looking for a quiet weekend away somewhere.
I was there at University and beyond between 79 and 87. I thought it was a very attractive city then. Funnily enough I only left due to an oil price crash of 86.
Do we know what percentage of people are on variable utility tarrifs, as opposed to those fixed a year ahead?
In other words, how salient is the actual issue with the public, when the bills arrive at the end of the month?
At present it is roughly half and half. Last number I saw was I think 13m (out of 27-28m households) on fixed.
I just finished a fixed deal at the end of August. For the brief time that other fixed were available they were not cheap. I chose a variable tariff at the time because it was cheaper!. 15 days later i was told by them that my tariff was increasing by £139 a year. Not sure what to expect in the year to come.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
Would it? I cant remember what the Tories did last time though before that it was only 2 needed, but the MPs filtered before it got to the members.
The nomination level is pointless unless MPs take their role seriously anyway.
And why on earth would Keir step down? Itd because bold leader role resign as they were slightly underwhelming.
I actually hope France and AUKUS can find a way to move on and agree a close relationship
The EU is not going to be able to form its own defence force, not least as Germany is unlikely to be interested, and a defence and security agreement between the UK and France as proposed by Mark Rutte in Downing Street last friday is the most sensible and practical way forward
I support AUKUS as I do believe it is the correct way to address issues in the Trans-Pacific, but all the west need to move on from the anger and fury and concentrate on the main aim to help defend the area from aggression from China, not least Taiwan and the South China sea, but also come together through the CPTPP to compete on commercial trading terms with China
This will take time but I do not want anyone to think I am against France being integral to the defence and security of the Trans Pacific but also I want France and UK to do the same in Europe
If all sides could just learn that confrontating each other serves no one, and improving understanding of each others issues and resolving them, would be a huge step forward and benefit all the people's of Europe and beyond
Taiwan’s application might be good for the U.K. CPTPP might concentrate on U.K. first (who after all, applied first) to avoid annoying either China or Taiwan.
I also learned just now that Taiwan already has a FTA with NZ and Singapore.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
It could just be as simple as there is a chance of a snap election next year, and Starmer knows that if Labour lose there's a chance the party could lurch back left again. I think it's probably good for the country that he's doing this. We can't afford another election when the two biggest parties are led by total idiots.
Starmer has decided he needs a Clause 4 moment.
The proposed changes are sensible, designed to provoke loonies in the Labour Party, and presumably winnable for Keir.
However, nobody cares so this will not achieve his actual aim which is media plaudits for bravery.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland#1968–74:_Creation_of_BLMC,_and_the_Stokes_era
ie they should not be initially lossmaking (unless the Price Cap is seriously out of whack).
Everything is heading down, apart from cases in the younger unvaccinated groups. The 15-19 group continues to move down to follow the curves of the other vaccinated groups.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/12/guy-fawkes-night-caused-pollution-spike-across-england-and-south-wales
The man speaks passable, if unconvincing, French. But his audience wasn't in France, so he didn't.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11677/12413531/matty-cash-aston-villa-defender-aims-to-make-poland-debut-with-world-cup-approaching
I blame Brexit....something something about red and white boots being a subtle nod...etc etc etc...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/theranos-results-predicted-miscarriage-in-woman-who-would-later-give-birth/
I'm slightly perplexed that US healthcare would do this at all - there's presumably no intervention that can be done and the value of frequent measuring is questionable, even psychologically.* Still, I guess it's billable.
*As half of a couple that has experienced three miscarriages, the not-knowing how it's going is hard. You hope and you wait for a sign of problems, then you get a scan to confirm or disprove (in five pregnancies there has actually been an early scan due to bleeding in all five - three with bad results and two with unexpected good ones). I don't think an indicative blood test result would be particularly helpful - maybe some reassurance, but it could go bad at any point, early on.
Plus Denmark is not in the Eurozone ie the EU's inner core, anyway. The same applies to Poland and many of the Eastern European nations for whom NATO is more important
https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/how-much-electricity-does-a-home-use
We have two fishtanks going 24-7, but also solar panels.
My supplier, green, has just gone bust.
I’m about to be transferred to a svt that will likely cost my new supplier ~£400 more than I pay. The shortfall is paid either by the taxpayer, or spread across all future billpayers (most likely).
This is wrong. The cap is unfair. I should be forced to pay the market rate. The only thing the govt should be doing is protecting the vulnerable (not me) by keeping the £20 UC uplift.
Edit: apologies, this is mainly a reply to @Philip_Thompson ’s post upthread.
E.g. More than 70 cargo ships queue outside Los Angeles and Long Beach ports amid surge in US imports
Interesting tit bit, apparently Chinese economic output in raw number of items is down because again COVID has screwed up the whole chain for them too.
Biden's numbers aren't great, but they're not awful either. I think the comparisons are hard, though, because of how much more partisan politics has become.
If we've evolved an ability to record emotionally scarring genetic memories then that ability could be a good survival mechanism that would be selected via evolution. So those ancestors who developed the ability to warn their descendents via their own genetic memories would be more likely to pass on their genes.
Now, where's my Panzerfaust?
More people try and use the railways? But that would mean needing to invest more money. Much simpler to raise ticket prices to reduce demand.
Need to invest to upgrade to more modern machinery to reduce costs? But that would reduce employment in constituency X. Much easier to subsidise until the next election - cheaper in the short term....
Etc Etc.
Boris is in the top left position, occupying the 'Lawful Good' position of an alignment chart, but his uncomfortable expression and posture indicates this is not a position that sits well with him, he knows he does not belong.
The chap below him I do not know, and that he has been denied both an image with his own flag, or even a courtesy EU flag like Widodo below him, shows that this was the intention - he's there to make up the numbers, and his face shows clearly he is not happy about that.
Trudeau is rewarded for being an internationally recognised liberal with two of his own flags, with the hand of friendship offered by two EU flags as well, the hand of freidnship extended to the anglophone and francophone communities of Canada. He is shown closer to the flag on our left, indicating he may need to appeal to NDP support in the coming years. The bottles of water are included to remind people of the importance of water supply in the world, even as people focus on Covid.
Biden is shown with EU flag swarming up behind an EU flag, a veiled reference to how shabbily he has just treated an EU Member
Draghi (?) occupies pride of place directly in UvdL's eyeline, as a fellow EU member, but the flag occupies the first part of the image she will see - a subtle reminder that the EU comes before nations or individuals. His downcast expression is in judgement of Biden, below, showing the EU is the rising power.
The lady in the top centre with a head tie has a very satisfied expression, knowing she will get first viewing from someone going from top to bottom. Judging from her position between the UK and Italy, I assume she must in fact be Macron in disguise.
Ursula von der Leyen looms over it all like Galactus waiting to swallow them all, but the distance from the inset images shows that this is an aspiration only, that the EU must grow stronger and larger still to realise its ambitions - it has a way to go.
...And I've run out of material for the other two.
PS: I was going to ask what your secret was.
But not for a month, as they wait for the first 3 week measures to bed in.
And a reverse ferret on UC, with this as the excuse, and the previous 10% salami slicing since 2015 as a further reason.
Otherwise, I want also want to know what appliances he's using!
In other words, how salient is the actual issue with the public, when the bills arrive at the end of the month?
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
https://twitter.com/FisherAndrew79/status/1440708088865050631?s=20
https://twitter.com/kylieatwood/status/1440714044994777096
The megaphone diplomacy seems to be from Macron attention-seeking and electioneering for next spring under pressure from Le Pen, and from the bits of the EU that are falling for his schtick.
I think more appropriately they need to be working on how the EuCo is going to create a viable EU Defence Force (or whatever it is called). As a semi-detached member of NATO for decades, France is perhaps well-placed.
But UVDL the Useless, the great European Commission arse-protector, was German Defence Minister from 2013 to 2019, when Germany manage to reduce their operational submarines from six to one, avoidedd taking a crucial decision on what was to replace Tornado Batch One (for which they are in a pickle now), and God knows what else. So I am not very hopeful.
In my second job - oil industry - the horizon was 10-25 years. There were longer contracts - one was planned (but not implemented) that would have be 50 years.
"Hedgehogs. Why can't they just share the hedge?"
Also makes it harder for any challenge to bring in a nutty candidate (same rules would apply to a leadership challenge?)
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
It’s Trudeau.
Oh and picked a contractual fight with the best gun company on the planet, on the basis that their guns were crap. And got her head handed to her in court...
I was there for a couple of years and then left for warmer climes (North Africa and the Middle East) and then much colder climes (Norway). When I returned in around 2010 I mentioned to my wife (who had also worked offshore for a decade) that it had changed into a really nice city with loads of good venues, restaurants and bars and a really good feel to it. That view has only increased in the decade I have worked there off and on since. Even if I don't like travelling for work, I genuinely look forward to spending a week or two in Aberdeen and would recommend it to anyone looking for a quiet weekend away somewhere.
(Nor any other language)
So, should I urgently trade out my position on Starmer as next PM (currently would be a profit) which is based on my opinion that he and Johnson will fight the next election and his odds still have further to come in?
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1440706594602323988?s=20
https://twitter.com/samsonellis/status/1440632638440574989
Is it Bungle from 1970s TV show “Rainbow”?
The nomination level is pointless unless MPs take their role seriously anyway.
And why on earth would Keir step down? Itd because bold leader role resign as they were slightly underwhelming.
Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
The EU is not going to be able to form its own defence force, not least as Germany is unlikely to be interested, and a defence and security agreement between the UK and France as proposed by Mark Rutte in Downing Street last friday is the most sensible and practical way forward
I support AUKUS as I do believe it is the correct way to address issues in the Trans-Pacific, but all the west need to move on from the anger and fury and concentrate on the main aim to help defend the area from aggression from China, not least Taiwan and the South China sea, but also come together through the CPTPP to compete on commercial trading terms with China
This will take time but I do not want anyone to think I am against France being integral to the defence and security of the Trans Pacific but also I want France and UK to do the same in Europe
If all sides could just learn that confrontating each other serves no one, and improving understanding of each others issues and resolving them, would be a huge step forward and benefit all the people's of Europe and beyond
CPTPP might concentrate on U.K. first (who after all, applied first) to avoid annoying either China or Taiwan.
I also learned just now that Taiwan already has a FTA with NZ and Singapore.
The proposed changes are sensible, designed to provoke loonies in the Labour Party, and presumably winnable for Keir.
However, nobody cares so this will not achieve his actual aim which is media plaudits for bravery.