Truss has managed to avoid a set piece interview throughout whole campaign – politicalbetting.com

Pulpstar said:

Cookie said:

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DavidL said:

Cicero said:

The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.

There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),

Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.

I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.

But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.

We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.

Has the price of wind gone up then? Or sunshine? The price of electricity generated by free renewables has, and perhaps the government could look into that.

Right now we are getting 47% of our energy from gas and 15% from wind. To free us of a situation where gas is the determinative cost we really need to reverse those figures. When Dogger Bank etc comes on stream we may be close to that on a good day.

When is that likely to happen?
There is also the Morocco project. My understanding - though it is vague - is that we could be getting around a quarter of UK electricity from this by the 2030s.

I doubt very much we'll get a quarter of our energy from Morocco.

There's this though - https://octopus.energy/press/octopus-energy-backs-mega-solar-farm-in-morocco-to-power-7-million-heat-pumps-with-cheap-green-power/
3.6 GW is about the same as Hinkley point C. So not a quarter, but it all helps.

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Sweden’s principal centre-right party, the Moderates (remember Fredrik Reinfeldt and Carl Bildt?) is about to get absolutely spanked at the GE on 11 September.

The current leader Ulf Kristersson has made a dreadful error of judgment by cosying up to the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats. Voters had been drifting away from the Moderates, but now it’s a flood.

Today it is clear: the Sweden Democrats have overtaken the once mighty Moderates to be the largest opposition party:

SD 20.6% (+3.1)
M 15.8% (-4.0)

Echos of the Tory hard-right completely routing the wet/one-nation wing.

He hasn't when on the latest poll the right of centre Opposition block will be on 48% combined with the Sweden Democrats compared to only 40% for the Opposition Alliance block at the last election without the Sweden Democrats but including the Centre Party who now back the Social Democrats.

Sweden has PR not FPTP so the main thing is the strength of the block not each party

If the Sweden Democrats become the largest Opposition party (and I think they will), the Rightwing bloc will collapse. Kristersson’s sweaty face was a sorry sight when journalists confronted him yesterday. Classic bunny in headlights. He has totally fluffed it and he knows it. Ditto Liberals who are obviously completely embarrassed at landing in the “wrong” bloc. Only the Christian Democrats look pleased.

Jimmie Åkesson and Magdalena Andersson are laughing their heads off.

BlancheLivermore said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eristdoof said:

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IshmaelZ said:

Cicero said:

The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.

There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),

Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.

This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.

Quite right, its clearly been invented by Michael Palin and has since gotten out of hand.

Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?

Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.

My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.

No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.

It comes from the Laurentian kanata which means village or settlement
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kanata#Laurentian

Laurentian was the language of the St Lawrence Iroquoians
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_Iroquoians

Stocky said:

solarflare said:

eristdoof said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Sandpit said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Cookie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Rob Ford brings facts to a prejudice party - fascinating trio of threads sparked by the “Never kissed a Tory” t- shirt:

In the second volume of @sexliesballots I had a look at voters' attitudes to marriage across party lines. 2010 Labour voters were much more likely to be upset at the idea of a close relative marrying a Conservative than 2010 Tories were of a potential Labour in-law.

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1564202925068623874

Same phenomenon noted among Remain vs Leave voters.

I would suggest that this is a result of the dominant media culrure being Labour/Remain.
Remainers in deep Remainia might literally never knowingly encounter a Leaver or a Tory first hand. Potentially, their only exposure to them is via their chosen media, which will generally paint Leavers in a negative light.
Whereas Leavers in deep Leavistan - even if they personally do not know any Remainers (or Labour voters) will, if they watch any telly at all, be exposed to Remainy/Labour/Centrist Dad views on Remain's own terms. They may not agree with them, but Remain/Labour types will not be the distant and scary stereotypes that Leave/Tory types will be for those in deep Remainia.

Dominant media culture is Remain and Labour? You do know what the most popular newspapers in the UK are, right?

She’s done a lot of newspaper work during the campaign.

The criticism, from those who would criticise her no matter what she did, is the lack of TV interviews - where yes, the culture is very much Blairite and Remain.

That's thecmost pathetic excuse I have ever heard. Thatcher thought the BBC was run by actual Marxists and it didn't stop her doing TV interviews.

Right. If Truss does want to model herself as Thatcher, she's totally lacking in this aspect. Margaret Thatcher used to pop up quite often on normal news programs (Eg. Six O'Clock news) to answer questions from that day's news. I don't remember seeing any PM since doing that.

It's what I like about Borgen - the lovely now-fictitious idea that the PM will rock up to any news programme and happily answer questions free-form with about an hour's notice. Nice for the narrative but not particularly realistic, well certainly not here in the UK.

I loved the original Borgen - but was disappointed with the recent series. It seems a bit thin and odd to me.

On the subject of TV - I'm mourning the loss of Better Call Saul.

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Tory support is in the 30+% range, however it has been wiped out on PB (although there is a large reservoir of potential support). @hyufd is right in that PB is no longer representative of Tory support.

Why? What is different about PB? Age?, Political awareness? Intelligence? What?

What is someone who still happily supports the Tories like?

The average Tory voter is now a skilled working class Leave voter or a pensioner who voted Leave.

The average PB poster however is a middle class graduate who voted Remain or at most voted Leave but only to go to EEA

Makes sense, but it is quite dramatic. So it will all be down to how many of each group there are and where they live.

Any reason for limiting it to 'skilled working class leave'. What about 'unskilled leavers'? Or do you think they will be mainly Labour or non voters anyway?

Unskilled voters, certainly if they live in social housing will still be mainly Labour even if they voted Leave

darkage said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.

No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.

Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.

Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.

What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.

The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?

All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.

Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.

I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.

Perhaps AI could eventually make policies like this more realistic?
Automate the means testing and establish a baseline position that way.
However it would require mass data collection at quite an intrusive level, and public confidence in its effectiveness, which is doubtful.
It won't happen in the UK first.

Andy_Cooke said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.

No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.

Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.

Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.

Pricing is a rationing solution. It is not a method of avoiding rationing; it is a method of rationing.
It rations by income/wealth.

IshmaelZ said:

TOPPING said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eristdoof said:

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IshmaelZ said:

Cicero said:

The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.

There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),

Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.

This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.

Quite right, its clearly been invented by Michael Palin and has since gotten out of hand.

Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?

Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.

My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.

No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.

It comes from the Laurentian kanata which means village or settlement
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kanata#Laurentian

Laurentian was the language of the St Lawrence Iroquoians
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_Iroquoians

I like the story of Elephant and Castle being named after Le Dauphin Castille.

Supporting evidence for which I can find nowhere.

Wiki

The myth of the infanta

The popular and enduring idea that the inn itself derives its name from an English corruption of the phrase "La Infanta de Castilla", as a reference to Eleanor of Castile, has been debunked by local historian Stephen Humphrey in his 2013 book Elephant and Castle, a History.

After examining how the image of an elephant with a castle on its back has been popular for centuries and throughout Europe (the earliest example predating Queen Eleanor by 1,500 years), and pointing out the fact that the sign only begins to be used in the area about 500 years after Eleanor was alive, he states: "The story of Queen Eleanor in relation to the Elephant and Castle is therefore a myth. It is wildly anachronistic both in respect of the sign in general and in its specific use in Newington, and she has no connection with the sign or with the place."[5]

Nigelb said:

Pulpstar said:

Cookie said:

DavidL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DavidL said:

Cicero said:

The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.

There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),

Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.

I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.

But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.

We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.

Has the price of wind gone up then? Or sunshine? The price of electricity generated by free renewables has, and perhaps the government could look into that.

Right now we are getting 47% of our energy from gas and 15% from wind. To free us of a situation where gas is the determinative cost we really need to reverse those figures. When Dogger Bank etc comes on stream we may be close to that on a good day.

When is that likely to happen?
There is also the Morocco project. My understanding - though it is vague - is that we could be getting around a quarter of UK electricity from this by the 2030s.

I doubt very much we'll get a quarter of our energy from Morocco.

There's this though - https://octopus.energy/press/octopus-energy-backs-mega-solar-farm-in-morocco-to-power-7-million-heat-pumps-with-cheap-green-power/
3.6 GW is about the same as Hinkley point C. So not a quarter, but it all helps.

Between that and Dogger, you could be looking at a total of 20% of UK grid capacity (though of course they won't both be generating anywhere near all of that at any given time... though nor does the UK Grid run at capacity all of the time).

But of course other stuff is being developed at the same time.

The basic problem is the next 5-10 years ... which wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad had we not delayed the nuclear decision for well over a decade, and killed off various tidal projects.
Even the decisions on the Morocco and Dogger projects could have been made at least a couple of years earlier.

williamglenn said:

Talking of GB news:

@OliviaUtley
After 2 great years at The Telegraph, I’m off to @GBNEWS in October to join the politics team. I hugely admire what GB is doing - and it’s been brilliant watching it go from strength to strength. Very excited to get started 🤩

https://twitter.com/oliviautley/status/1564533309681672192

Peter_the_Punter said:

eristdoof said:

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IshmaelZ said:

Cicero said:

The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.

There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),

Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.

This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.

Quite right, its clearly been invented by Michael Palin and has since gotten out of hand.

Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?

Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.

My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.

No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.

No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.

Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.

Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.

What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.

The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?

All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.

Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.

I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.

It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.

Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.

Like the concept if it can be done properly.

I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.

williamglenn said:

Talking of GB news:

@OliviaUtley
After 2 great years at The Telegraph, I’m off to @GBNEWS in October to join the politics team. I hugely admire what GB is doing - and it’s been brilliant watching it go from strength to strength. Very excited to get started 🤩

https://twitter.com/oliviautley/status/1564533309681672192

StuartDickson said:

Labour deny plan to change party constitution to rule out coalitions with SNP

Labour has poured cold water on claims the party’s constitution could be changed to rule out any formal coalitions with the SNP.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/labour-deny-plan-to-change-party-constitution-to-rule-out-coalitions-with-snp-3822821

Starmer = dud

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Sweden’s principal centre-right party, the Moderates (remember Fredrik Reinfeldt and Carl Bildt?) is about to get absolutely spanked at the GE on 11 September.

The current leader Ulf Kristersson has made a dreadful error of judgment by cosying up to the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats. Voters had been drifting away from the Moderates, but now it’s a flood.

Today it is clear: the Sweden Democrats have overtaken the once mighty Moderates to be the largest opposition party:

SD 20.6% (+3.1)
M 15.8% (-4.0)

Echos of the Tory hard-right completely routing the wet/one-nation wing.

He hasn't when on the latest poll the right of centre Opposition block will be on 48% combined with the Sweden Democrats compared to only 40% for the Opposition Alliance block at the last election without the Sweden Democrats but including the Centre Party who now back the Social Democrats.

Sweden has PR not FPTP so the main thing is the strength of the block not each party

If the Sweden Democrats become the largest Opposition party (and I think they will), the Rightwing bloc will collapse. Kristersson’s sweaty face was a sorry sight when journalists confronted him yesterday. Classic bunny in headlights. He has totally fluffed it and he knows it. Ditto Liberals who are obviously completely embarrassed at landing in the “wrong” bloc. Only the Christian Democrats look pleased.

Jimmie Åkesson and Magdalena Andersson are laughing their heads off.

I am not sure about that.

Berlusconi for example is well prepared to see Forza Italia serve in government with Meloni later next month even though Meloni's Brothers of Italy will win far more seats than Forza Italia.

Italy like Sweden has PR and under PR it is the size of your coalition block that matters not the size of your individual party as it is here with FPTP

The size of an unstable bloc is irrelevant.

Magdalena Andersson can hold together a team. Shaky, but it’ll stand up.

Jimmie Åkesson cannot. Despite his many positive qualities as a leader, he is not a miracle worker. If the Moderates end up behind the Sweden Democrats then the whole project is finished.

rottenborough said:

Jim Pickard
@PickardJE
·
3h
it’s hard to imagine a more difficult in-tray facing the next prime minister

Strained public finances
Cost of living crisis
Ukraine
Brexit
NHS crisis
Wave of strikes

Here’s our
@FT
analysis

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1564497598014169090

===

Lucky for us the membership are about to elect someone more than capable of taking up this nightmare challenge.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

Talking of GB news:

@OliviaUtley
After 2 great years at The Telegraph, I’m off to @GBNEWS in October to join the politics team. I hugely admire what GB is doing - and it’s been brilliant watching it go from strength to strength. Very excited to get started 🤩

https://twitter.com/oliviautley/status/1564533309681672192

Olivia's very next tweet is:-
I’ll be new to Westminster - so if you’re in politics/policy in any capacity and fancy a coffee/drink, please do get in touch! DMs open
https://twitter.com/OliviaUtley/status/1564533313737564160

Good luck to her but it does not sound like GBNews is paying a fortune for her contact book.

bondegezou said:

williamglenn said:

StuartDickson said:

AugustusCarp2 said:

Truss's first PMQT is going to be a bloodbath. She simply doesn't have the mental agility to think on her feet, and she knows it. Starmer is going to go into full-on barrister mode - question, pause, wait for his subject to say something slightly off-line and then monster her. It's going to be brutal.

She is not going to enjoy her new job. Having spent her entire life working towards this goal, it is going to be a crushing personal disappointment.

I genuinely feel sorry for her on a personal level. Events are likely to totally overcome her. She has a 1% chance of success.

How do you rate the chances of these events?

- A decisive Ukrainian breakthrough leading to Russia withdrawing to pre-February borders
- Gas prices falling as the race to fill European storage capacity ends
- Inflation falling as one-off pandemic effects get filtered out

These are good points, and I think some of the inflationary effects of the pandemic and from energy prices will pass in time. (How much, how soon, I don’t know… if I did, I could presumably make a killing on the stock market.)

However, the hit to living standards isn’t going to be reversed. People will still be worse off and feel worse off. Things probably won’t look so bad in 2024, but they’re still going to look significantly worse than the sunny uplands Boris once promised.

Also, people blame bad things on their politicians more than they credit the politicians for the good things. If things get bad and then return to normal, there is a hysteresis.

Sandpit said:

algarkirk said:

StuartDickson said:

Labour deny plan to change party constitution to rule out coalitions with SNP

Labour has poured cold water on claims the party’s constitution could be changed to rule out any formal coalitions with the SNP.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/labour-deny-plan-to-change-party-constitution-to-rule-out-coalitions-with-snp-3822821

Starmer = dud

Party constitutions do not overrule the supremacy of parliament. The idea that a particular configuration of government, arising from the confidence of the HoC following an election, can be ruled out in advance is nonsense. It is meaningless and of course unenforceable.

Presumably, the point of a constitutional rule like that, would be as a mechanism for the party’s MPs to hold the feet of the leader to the fire during the post-election negotiations? It would give the Lab MPs cover to no-confidence the leader, or vote against an unconstitutional coalition agreement.

williamglenn said:

Russian tourists in Kazakhstan have faced anger from locals and even fines from police for sporting pro-war Z stickers on their cars.

"They saw this ["Z”] symbol on the back of our car. They attacked us with accusations that we are fascists. [They said] that we attacked Ukraine."

https://twitter.com/rferl/status/1564318236279193601

OnlyLivingBoy said:

eristdoof said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.

No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.

Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.

Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.

What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.

The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?

All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.

Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.

I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.

It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.

Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.

Like the concept if it can be done properly.

I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.

These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.

That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.

Scott_xP said:

For anybody interested in solar panels for their home, somebody shared this yesterday, which looks interesting

https://www.smartflowersolar.co.uk

ydoethur said:

williamglenn said:

Russian tourists in Kazakhstan have faced anger from locals and even fines from police for sporting pro-war Z stickers on their cars.

"They saw this ["Z”] symbol on the back of our car. They attacked us with accusations that we are fascists. [They said] that we attacked Ukraine."

https://twitter.com/rferl/status/1564318236279193601

Well, they did.

If they don't want to be accused of being fascists, maybe they should refrain from sporting fascist symbols on their vehicles.

Or at the very least, remove them when away from Russia.

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eristdoof said:

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IshmaelZ said:

Cicero said:

The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.

There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),

Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.

This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.

Quite right, its clearly been invented by Michael Palin and has since gotten out of hand.

Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?

Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.

My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.

No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.

In Australia many place names are named after aboriginal words or phrases for that area. I recall a story about one town where the settlers asked the aborigines for the name and the aborigines took the piss out of them and gave a rude phrase which what then adopted as the town's name by the European settlers not realising what they were calling themselves.

Unfortunately I can't remember the town, or what it allegedly meant, and it's possibly apocryphal but it's a fun story.

Don't have to go so far, thouhg. One of the Pre-Raphaelites was 'persuaded' to title a poem after the 'wrong' name for a Highland well, which would get him the ban hammer instantly on PB today if OGH spoke the Gaelic.

TOPPING said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eristdoof said:

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IshmaelZ said:

Cicero said:

The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.

There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),

Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.

This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.

Quite right, its clearly been invented by Michael Palin and has since gotten out of hand.

Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?

Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.

My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.

No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.

It comes from the Laurentian kanata which means village or settlement
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kanata#Laurentian

Laurentian was the language of the St Lawrence Iroquoians
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_Iroquoians

I like the story of Elephant and Castle being named after Le Dauphin Castille.

Supporting evidence for which I can find nowhere.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

eristdoof said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.

No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.

Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.

Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.

What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.

The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?

All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.

Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.

I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.

It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.

Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.

Like the concept if it can be done properly.

I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.

These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.

That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.

Good morning

Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line

I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2

We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill

Stocky said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

eristdoof said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.

No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.

Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.

Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.

What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.

The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?

All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.

Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.

I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.

It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.

Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.

Like the concept if it can be done properly.

I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.

These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.

That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.

Good morning

Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line

I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2

We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill

I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?

Nigelb said:

Interesting.

The Ukrainian Air Force has released video showing for the first time ever US-supplied AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles being fired from their MiG-29 jets.

They seem to be fired in pairs from the inboard pylons where R-27 AAM would otherwise be carried...
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1564539358451044353

Reportedly, very effective.
Ukraine doesn't have many Mig29s, but the US has a crap-tonne* of HARMs.

*technical term for a large number whose precise details I'm in ignorance.

Nigelb said:

Interesting.

The Ukrainian Air Force has released video showing for the first time ever US-supplied AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles being fired from their MiG-29 jets.

They seem to be fired in pairs from the inboard pylons where R-27 AAM would otherwise be carried...
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1564539358451044353

Reportedly, very effective.
Ukraine doesn't have many Mig29s, but the US has a crap-tonne* of HARMs.

*technical term for a large number whose precise details I'm in ignorance.

Stocky said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

eristdoof said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.

No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.

Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.

Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.

What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.

The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?

All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.

Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.

I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.

It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.

Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.

Like the concept if it can be done properly.

I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.

These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.

That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.

Good morning

Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line

I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2

We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill

I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OT Scott Parker's been sacked so that's another bet lost.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11159765/Bournemouths-Scott-Parker-Premier-League-boss-axed-August-2004.html

Stocky said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OT Scott Parker's been sacked so that's another bet lost.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11159765/Bournemouths-Scott-Parker-Premier-League-boss-axed-August-2004.html

Jeez - they went up last year.

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eristdoof said:

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IshmaelZ said:

Cicero said:

The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.

There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),

Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.

This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.

Quite right, its clearly been invented by Michael Palin and has since gotten out of hand.

Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?

Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.

My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.

No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.

It comes from the Laurentian kanata which means village or settlement
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kanata#Laurentian

Laurentian was the language of the St Lawrence Iroquoians
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_Iroquoians

I like the story of Elephant and Castle being named after Le Dauphin Castille.

Supporting evidence for which I can find nowhere.

Isn't it something to do with La Infanta de Castile?

OnlyLivingBoy said:

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eristdoof said:

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IshmaelZ said:

Cicero said:

The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.

There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),

Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.

This site knows nothing of the sort. Sorry but I don't believe in Finland.

Quite right, its clearly been invented by Michael Palin and has since gotten out of hand.

Finland denial is for lightweights. Australia is fake. Obviously. A country with mammals that lay eggs?

Even the name is not that imaginative. Someone just inserted two extra letters into the name of a European country and the name stuck.

My favorite story about the naming of a country concerns Canada. Apparently when the local inhabitants were asked by some newly-arrived Europeans what the country was called, the reply was 'I don't understand you', or ca-na-da in the local lingo.

No idea if it is true but has a nice ring to it.

It comes from the Laurentian kanata which means village or settlement
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kanata#Laurentian

Laurentian was the language of the St Lawrence Iroquoians
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lawrence_Iroquoians

I like the story of Elephant and Castle being named after Le Dauphin Castille.

Supporting evidence for which I can find nowhere.

Isn't it something to do with La Infanta de Castile?

Didn't we just do this?
I've always loved the fact that such a pedestrian spot in SE London has such an exotic name. It's not the same now they've demolished the shopping centre, though.

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Tory support is in the 30+% range, however it has been wiped out on PB (although there is a large reservoir of potential support). @hyufd is right in that PB is no longer representative of Tory support.

Why? What is different about PB? Age?, Political awareness? Intelligence? What?

What is someone who still happily supports the Tories like?

The average Tory voter is now a skilled working class Leave voter or a pensioner who voted Leave.

The average PB poster however is a middle class graduate who voted Remain or at most voted Leave but only to go to EEA

Makes sense, but it is quite dramatic. So it will all be down to how many of each group there are and where they live.

Any reason for limiting it to 'skilled working class leave'. What about 'unskilled leavers'? Or do you think they will be mainly Labour or non voters anyway?

Unskilled voters, certainly if they live in social housing will still be mainly Labour even if they voted Leave

The big risk for the Tories in changing their demographic is at some time they lose their safe Southern seats to the LDs, but are in a tight fights with Labour in their new joint heartlands.

PS That is just a fantasy on my part and I don't see it happening on any scale that could wipe out the Tories from the South, but wouldn't it be a change to see the LDs with hundreds of safe seats and the Tories and Labour scraping for 2nd place in the previous Labour heartlands and sharing the spoils.

Must stop dreaming now.

kjh said:

Stocky said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

eristdoof said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.

No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.

Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.

Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.

What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.

The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?

All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.

Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.

I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.

It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.

Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.

Like the concept if it can be done properly.

I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.

These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.

That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.

Good morning

Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line

I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2

We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill

I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?

Unless you are doing something very odd with water it should be a dramatic drop in what you pay. When we moved into our latest house we had a meter put in immediately it cost us about a 1/3rd of what the previous owners were paying (I guess because it is a very large house and if not metered based upon rateable value). There were 4 of us. There were only 2 in the previous owner's family and they only lived here part time.

Something many people don't know is if all your rainwater goes to soakaways you can get a reduction in your sewage charge, but you have to claim it.

ydoethur said:

Stocky said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

eristdoof said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.

No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.

Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.

Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.

What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.

The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?

All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.

Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.

I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.

It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.

Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.

Like the concept if it can be done properly.

I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.

These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.

That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.

Good morning

Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line

I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2

We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill

I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?

It's easier for them in terms of monitoring usage. It also encourages people to save water which makes their lives easier.

If you're not in a very full house, or washing the car with mains water every day, it will also be cheaper for you.

I would have said for an ordinary household a meter is a no-brainer. I've had one for the last 16 years through four addresses and it's saved me a fortune.

Scott_xP said:

WTAF?

💬 It is a tremendous privilege to be a candidate in this election. I will never forget that if elected, I will not only be Prime Minister, but Leader of the @Conservatives Party too.

👇 My words in @ConHome
https://conservativehome.com/2022/08/30/liz-truss-if-i-am-elected-as-leader-my-priority-will-be-to-reinvigorate-our-grassroots-without-them-we-cannot-keep-winning-elections/

Stocky said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OT Scott Parker's been sacked so that's another bet lost.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11159765/Bournemouths-Scott-Parker-Premier-League-boss-axed-August-2004.html

Jeez - they went up last year.

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Sweden’s principal centre-right party, the Moderates (remember Fredrik Reinfeldt and Carl Bildt?) is about to get absolutely spanked at the GE on 11 September.

The current leader Ulf Kristersson has made a dreadful error of judgment by cosying up to the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats. Voters had been drifting away from the Moderates, but now it’s a flood.

Today it is clear: the Sweden Democrats have overtaken the once mighty Moderates to be the largest opposition party:

SD 20.6% (+3.1)
M 15.8% (-4.0)

Echos of the Tory hard-right completely routing the wet/one-nation wing.

He hasn't when on the latest poll the right of centre Opposition block will be on 48% combined with the Sweden Democrats compared to only 40% for the Opposition Alliance block at the last election without the Sweden Democrats but including the Centre Party who now back the Social Democrats.

Sweden has PR not FPTP so the main thing is the strength of the block not each party

If the Sweden Democrats become the largest Opposition party (and I think they will), the Rightwing bloc will collapse. Kristersson’s sweaty face was a sorry sight when journalists confronted him yesterday. Classic bunny in headlights. He has totally fluffed it and he knows it. Ditto Liberals who are obviously completely embarrassed at landing in the “wrong” bloc. Only the Christian Democrats look pleased.

Jimmie Åkesson and Magdalena Andersson are laughing their heads off.

I am not sure about that.

Berlusconi for example is well prepared to see Forza Italia serve in government with Meloni later next month even though Meloni's Brothers of Italy will win far more seats than Forza Italia.

Italy like Sweden has PR and under PR it is the size of your coalition block that matters not the size of your individual party as it is here with FPTP

The size of an unstable bloc is irrelevant.

Magdalena Andersson can hold together a team. Shaky, but it’ll stand up.

Jimmie Åkesson cannot. Despite his many positive qualities as a leader, he is not a miracle worker. If the Moderates end up behind the Sweden Democrats then the whole project is finished.

Unless the Moderates do a grand coalition deal with the Social Democrats German style or the Sweden Democrats disappear it isn't.

The populist right is not going away. The mainstream right has to decide whether to do deals with it, as the PP has done with Vox in Spain or Berlusconi has done with Meloni in Italy or the Moderates have done with the Sweden Democrats or to refuse to touch it.

However if they refuse to touch it then the only way the centre right is likely to get into government without the populist right in Europe and indeed most western nations now is with a deal with the centre left, as the CDU did with the SPD under Merkel. Or else they get squeezed between the populist right and liberal left, especially in nations without PR like France where Les Republicains now not only trail Macron and Le Pen's parties but even have fallen behind the far left Melenchon's party.

See also Canada from 1993 when the Progressive Conservatives fell behind both the Liberals and the populist right Reform Party until it merged with Reform's successor, the Canadian Alliance, to form today's Conservative Party of Canada in 2003. Or indeed here where May's Tories fell behind both Labour and Farage's Brexit Party in Spring 2019 until Boris took over

Stocky said:

kjh said:

Stocky said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

eristdoof said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.

No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.

Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.

Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.

What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.

The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?

All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.

Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.

I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.

It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.

Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.

Like the concept if it can be done properly.

I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.

These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.

That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.

Good morning

Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line

I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2

We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill

I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?

Unless you are doing something very odd with water it should be a dramatic drop in what you pay. When we moved into our latest house we had a meter put in immediately it cost us about a 1/3rd of what the previous owners were paying (I guess because it is a very large house and if not metered based upon rateable value). There were 4 of us. There were only 2 in the previous owner's family and they only lived here part time.

Something many people don't know is if all your rainwater goes to soakaways you can get a reduction in your sewage charge, but you have to claim it.

I already get a reduction in sewage charge - does this still apply if I go on a meter?

I use water to top up pond, water allotment and flower beds occasionally, fill hot tub when we hire one (maybe twice a year), clean cars. Four people in house so plenty of showers (though one is about to depart to university).

Stocky said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

eristdoof said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

FPT:

A reminder that there will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.

No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.

Calls for government to reduce price, in order that customers don’t need to reduce demand, *will* result in fuel rationing this winter.

Most of the solutions are on the demand side - kicking off football matches at 1pm rather than 3pm, is a good example of this.

What's so BAD about fuel rationing ? It's better for most people than 8 grand energy bills.

The questions are, who gets rationed, and who makes the decision about who gets rationed?

All households should get a below market price for consumption up to the median minus 15% and face a punitive tariff above that. For firms set the threshold at their average for the last 3 years minus 15% with the same dual tarrif structure. Subsidise the cheaper tariff using revenue from the punitive tariff plus a windfall tax on energy firms plus temporary income tax surcharge plus borrowing.

Trouble is that only works if everyone is getting the same sort of energy and living in the same circumstances. So someone who heats their house with oil will inevitably have lower gas/electricity bills than someone doing everything on the grid. And is it right that a family with a couple of kids gets a punitive tariff when someone living on their own does not.

I am not opposed to the idea, I just see the implementation as being completely unworkable.

It's a blunt tool certainly but it's better than just letting the free market work it out. You could adjust it for households with no gas meter. I think it is totally workable even if of course there will be edge cases that will make its application unfair in places.

Loads of suppliers went bust last year, also a lot of people switch every year. Not sure what happened with their data, presumably passed on to whoever took over the supply but not sure we could trust the suppliers to manage it accurately to work out a particular households 3 year average.

Like the concept if it can be done properly.

I would only use the 3 year averages for business users. For domestic users I would apply median household usage minus 15%. The principle behind the household plan is that everyone should be able to achieve minimum standards of heating, have showers etc. People in bigger houses shouldn't get more help. For firms the idea is simply to prevent otherwise viable businesses from going bust and laying people off, so it makes sense for larger or more energy intensive businesses to get more help, and you need to benchmark against their normal usage, but also with a 15% reduction.

These minumum standards should be "rationed" per person. Which means you need each household would need to inform their energy suppliers of how many people there are in that flat/house. I can see there being a lot of opposition to that.

That would be too intrusive and expensive. The measure needs to be simple and inexpensive to implement. People like us - 6 ppl living at our address, big draughty house, would do badly out of it, but that's life.

Good morning

Interesting that our water meter was read this week and Welsh Water sent me the six month account on line

I logged in and they asked for confirmation of the number of people living at our home which I confirmed as 2

We moved to a water meter years ago and it halved our bill

I get the occasional email from my water company regarding going on a water meter. I still haven't done it - not sure why really - I guess I'm suspicious there may be a catch. Why would the water company want me to pay less than now? They say I can try a meter and revert back within two years if I want but should I trust this pledge?