Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.
Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.
Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.
Why are we there?
At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America: 1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals 2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals 3. Makes peace with Russia 4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions
I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
We (the friends of Ukraine) should massively undercut the American "bid" for Ukraine's minerals. We're expected to police the place - may as well get the rewards.
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).
There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.
Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.
The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.
I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
Yes. Reform despite all that face a choice. The tradition of not voting for the authoritarian right, or left, is quite strong. Farage's semi-admission into the playground rests on his disavowal of NF/BNP/EDL etc, and only using dog whistle tactics - which of course Tories have done in the past too.
Both Reform voters and Reform possibles are split. Many are of course populist 'strong man' extremists glad to have a party to support. But many are not. They are ordinary UK punters who belive (wrongly) that complex problems have simple solutions, fed up with mainstream politics just as millions of Americans were fed up with Democrats.
In the British system the "strong man" isn't needed. Elect a majority government and they can largely do as they see fit. Reform's pitch could be as simple as:
We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax We need to get value for money - so much of your money is being wasted by bureaucracy and silly agendas like equality officers We need to make work pay, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect a Reform government and we'll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there, and make our country fit for purpose again.
None of these are remotely easy. Many are contradictory. But there is enough truth in each point to sound compelling, especially if it can tie in with the massive fraud and waste which these voters believe is there to cut.
"Are you thinking what we're thinking?" asked Michael Howard, to be answered with "oh hell no" by the electorate. But reverse it - "We're thinking what YOU'RE thinking" and Reform can absolutely smash it.
The key to it? Labour's pledge card. 5 things we'd do. Simplistic but ambitious. Easy to attack but hard to disprove. On continuous repeat until they become ingrained. Once the pledges become the truth, its practically impossible to disarm them with facts.
Very very few people can ever pull this off. Blair did. Farage can.
Eek. Please @RochdalePioneers don't make posts like this. I'm struggling to think of a better post for Reform to use to campaign on. It is excellent and horrendously disturbing at the same time.
Good Morning one and all. Two points. 1) As I read Mr RP's post I wondered how many people actually self-describe as 'bureaucrats'? Everyone complains about 'bureaucracy' but no-one says that his or her job is unnecessary! 2) Reading the posts about self-driving cars, I've just been officially told that, due to my infirmity I'm unfit to drive. If I find a self-driving car, could I get my licence back, and drive again?
Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).
There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.
Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.
The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.
I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
Yes. Reform despite all that face a choice. The tradition of not voting for the authoritarian right, or left, is quite strong. Farage's semi-admission into the playground rests on his disavowal of NF/BNP/EDL etc, and only using dog whistle tactics - which of course Tories have done in the past too.
Both Reform voters and Reform possibles are split. Many are of course populist 'strong man' extremists glad to have a party to support. But many are not. They are ordinary UK punters who belive (wrongly) that complex problems have simple solutions, fed up with mainstream politics just as millions of Americans were fed up with Democrats.
In the British system the "strong man" isn't needed. Elect a majority government and they can largely do as they see fit. Reform's pitch could be as simple as:
We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax We need to get value for money - so much of your money is being wasted by bureaucracy and silly agendas like equality officers We need to make work pay, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect a Reform government and we'll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there, and make our country fit for purpose again.
None of these are remotely easy. Many are contradictory. But there is enough truth in each point to sound compelling, especially if it can tie in with the massive fraud and waste which these voters believe is there to cut.
"Are you thinking what we're thinking?" asked Michael Howard, to be answered with "oh hell no" by the electorate. But reverse it - "We're thinking what YOU'RE thinking" and Reform can absolutely smash it.
The key to it? Labour's pledge card. 5 things we'd do. Simplistic but ambitious. Easy to attack but hard to disprove. On continuous repeat until they become ingrained. Once the pledges become the truth, its practically impossible to disarm them with facts.
Very very few people can ever pull this off. Blair did. Farage can.
Eek. Please @RochdalePioneers don't make posts like this. I'm struggling to think of a better post for Reform to use to campaign on. It is excellent and horrendously disturbing at the same time.
Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).
There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.
Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.
The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.
I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
Yes. Reform despite all that face a choice. The tradition of not voting for the authoritarian right, or left, is quite strong. Farage's semi-admission into the playground rests on his disavowal of NF/BNP/EDL etc, and only using dog whistle tactics - which of course Tories have done in the past too.
Both Reform voters and Reform possibles are split. Many are of course populist 'strong man' extremists glad to have a party to support. But many are not. They are ordinary UK punters who belive (wrongly) that complex problems have simple solutions, fed up with mainstream politics just as millions of Americans were fed up with Democrats.
In the British system the "strong man" isn't needed. Elect a majority government and they can largely do as they see fit. Reform's pitch could be as simple as:
We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax We need to get value for money - so much of your money is being wasted by bureaucracy and silly agendas like equality officers We need to make work pay, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect a Reform government and we'll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there, and make our country fit for purpose again.
None of these are remotely easy. Many are contradictory. But there is enough truth in each point to sound compelling, especially if it can tie in with the massive fraud and waste which these voters believe is there to cut.
"Are you thinking what we're thinking?" asked Michael Howard, to be answered with "oh hell no" by the electorate. But reverse it - "We're thinking what YOU'RE thinking" and Reform can absolutely smash it.
The key to it? Labour's pledge card. 5 things we'd do. Simplistic but ambitious. Easy to attack but hard to disprove. On continuous repeat until they become ingrained. Once the pledges become the truth, its practically impossible to disarm them with facts.
Very very few people can ever pull this off. Blair did. Farage can.
Eek. Please @RochdalePioneers don't make posts like this. I'm struggling to think of a better post for Reform to use to campaign on. It is excellent and horrendously disturbing at the same time.
The horror is that they are *already saying this*. Just not distilled out into a coherent message yet.
Labour could head this off, but they're myopic and unable to see the big picture.
Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.
Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.
Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.
Why are we there?
At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America: 1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals 2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals 3. Makes peace with Russia 4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions
I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
We (the friends of Ukraine) should massively undercut the American "bid" for Ukraine's minerals. We're expected to police the place - may as well get the rewards.
Art of the deal, Donald, art of the deal....
Where do you get the idea that Trump is going to get any access to minerals
Reform are - my gut feeling says - overhyped. They will likely score some key wins in the next while but they will not be forming the next government at this stage. Allying with Trump and Putin is a strategic blunder.
Look at recent polls, it is quite clear Trump’s economic strategy is failing. Reform offering more of that will come to be seen as a big error.
I may yet be wrong but for now, I’m sticking with Labour re-elected in some form.
I think you're right in that Labour will get back in, likely with the LibDems. The right is split and in flux, and neither option will look all that compelling to a majority, or even a decent minority, of voters. The Tories will not be killed off by Farage - the party is far too resilient and dug in to some parts of the country.
But I disagree on Trump. Sadly, I'm not sure that Trump/Putin/Ukraine will be very salient by the time we get to the election. Will there still be a war on? Will Ukraine have been subjugated? I suspect not, even if Trump imposes a bad peace. People will move on. And they won't draw any conclusions about Trumpian economics either.
Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.
Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.
Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.
Why are we there?
At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America: 1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals 2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals 3. Makes peace with Russia 4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions
I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
Zelensky has made clear he is not giving Trump his minerals
Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.
Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.
Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.
Why are we there?
At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America: 1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals 2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals 3. Makes peace with Russia 4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions
I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
We (the friends of Ukraine) should massively undercut the American "bid" for Ukraine's minerals. We're expected to police the place - may as well get the rewards.
Art of the deal, Donald, art of the deal....
Where do you get the idea that Trump is going to get any access to minerals
Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.
Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.
Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.
Why are we there?
At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America: 1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals 2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals 3. Makes peace with Russia 4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions
I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
There's no UK interest in preventing an aggressive expansionist Russia swallowing up Ukraine?
Not if you believe we are safe on an island, don’t care about the rest of Europe, can’t grasp how bad the refugee situation could be and that Russia is going to stop expanding before they get here
We have no need of Europe, let alone Ukraine. It's liberal crap not Putin we disdain. We are a rock, we are an island.
Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.
Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.
Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.
Why are we there?
At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America: 1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals 2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals 3. Makes peace with Russia 4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions
I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
We (the friends of Ukraine) should massively undercut the American "bid" for Ukraine's minerals. We're expected to police the place - may as well get the rewards.
Art of the deal, Donald, art of the deal....
Starmer couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag.
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Remember the context - we're talking about "facts", not facts.
Two contradictory positions are true: There are more GP appointments being made available There are is a shortage of GPs, especially in localised pockets
Because the NHSes are shit sandwiches, there is both more appointments available in each nation and a catastrophic inability to see *my* GP at *my* practice. And because most people see a GP infrequently, they don't have the lived experience to disprove the narrative that you can't see a GP.
Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.
Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.
Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.
Why are we there?
At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America: 1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals 2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals 3. Makes peace with Russia 4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions
I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
Zelensky has made clear he is not giving Trump his minerals
Putin has now offered Russian minerals to Trump saying "we've got more minerals than Ukraine"
Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.
Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.
Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.
Why are we there?
At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America: 1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals 2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals 3. Makes peace with Russia 4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions
I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
We (the friends of Ukraine) should massively undercut the American "bid" for Ukraine's minerals. We're expected to police the place - may as well get the rewards.
Art of the deal, Donald, art of the deal....
Where do you get the idea that Trump is going to get any access to minerals
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Remember the context - we're talking about "facts", not facts.
Two contradictory positions are true: There are more GP appointments being made available There are is a shortage of GPs, especially in localised pockets
Because the NHSes are shit sandwiches, there is both more appointments available in each nation and a catastrophic inability to see *my* GP at *my* practice. And because most people see a GP infrequently, they don't have the lived experience to disprove the narrative that you can't see a GP.
To some extent, being able to see a GP depends on the competence or otherwise of the appointment system.
Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.
Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.
Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.
Why are we there?
At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America: 1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals 2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals 3. Makes peace with Russia 4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions
I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
Zelensky has made clear he is not giving Trump his minerals
Putin has now offered Russian minerals to Trump saying "we've got more minerals than Ukraine"
Incoming: War on Canada to facilitate construction of the Big, Beautiful, Bering Bridge.
Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).
There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.
Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.
The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.
I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
Yes. Reform despite all that face a choice. The tradition of not voting for the authoritarian right, or left, is quite strong. Farage's semi-admission into the playground rests on his disavowal of NF/BNP/EDL etc, and only using dog whistle tactics - which of course Tories have done in the past too.
Both Reform voters and Reform possibles are split. Many are of course populist 'strong man' extremists glad to have a party to support. But many are not. They are ordinary UK punters who belive (wrongly) that complex problems have simple solutions, fed up with mainstream politics just as millions of Americans were fed up with Democrats.
In the British system the "strong man" isn't needed. Elect a majority government and they can largely do as they see fit. Reform's pitch could be as simple as:
We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax We need to get value for money - so much of your money is being wasted by bureaucracy and silly agendas like equality officers We need to make work pay, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect a Reform government and we'll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there, and make our country fit for purpose again.
None of these are remotely easy. Many are contradictory. But there is enough truth in each point to sound compelling, especially if it can tie in with the massive fraud and waste which these voters believe is there to cut.
"Are you thinking what we're thinking?" asked Michael Howard, to be answered with "oh hell no" by the electorate. But reverse it - "We're thinking what YOU'RE thinking" and Reform can absolutely smash it.
The key to it? Labour's pledge card. 5 things we'd do. Simplistic but ambitious. Easy to attack but hard to disprove. On continuous repeat until they become ingrained. Once the pledges become the truth, its practically impossible to disarm them with facts.
Very very few people can ever pull this off. Blair did. Farage can.
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Waiting lists dropping mainly as a result of changes made before July 2024, as pointed out last week.
Ultimately yes - if the majority of people feel better off and that things are improving, then I cannot see a path for Labour not getting a second term. Whether people like or dislike Starmer, he is not an absolute shit and dilettante chancer like Johnson, nor is he a vacuous waste of space like Truss. He feels more like May, but May with a massive majority and a brilliant excuse (its the 14 years of Tory mis-managment that caused this).
Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.
Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.
Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.
Why are we there?
At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America: 1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals 2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals 3. Makes peace with Russia 4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions
I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
We (the friends of Ukraine) should massively undercut the American "bid" for Ukraine's minerals. We're expected to police the place - may as well get the rewards.
Art of the deal, Donald, art of the deal....
Patience. Boots on the ground could become facts on the ground.
As Trump disengages from Europe, things might develop otherwise than he expects.
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Remember the context - we're talking about "facts", not facts.
Two contradictory positions are true: There are more GP appointments being made available There are is a shortage of GPs, especially in localised pockets
Because the NHSes are shit sandwiches, there is both more appointments available in each nation and a catastrophic inability to see *my* GP at *my* practice. And because most people see a GP infrequently, they don't have the lived experience to disprove the narrative that you can't see a GP.
Its the 'it takes months to renew your passport' bollox on a bigger scale.
Well Labour were happy to peddle 'Broken Britain' bollox in opposition so they will now have to deal with it in government.
Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.
Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.
Never going to happen.
Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.
They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.
That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.
Law is accreting around this issue.
The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
People kill and maim other people every day whilst allegedly in control of cars. Banning humans from driving is the only way.
On that grounds motorcyclists and cyclists have also killed people so you would have to ban them too
Yup, ban 'em all.
There is a sober, sensible debate to be had over this:
- QALY. Victims of road collisions tend to be younger, in employment, fitter than the general population. Your cycle commuter, for example, tends to be a high-earner in their 20s/30s, so the comparison to COVID lockdowns is a little lazy. - There is a significant economic cost associated with collisions, whether from the emergency services (£2 million per fatality), insurance costs (70% of your premium, or about £8 billion a year), lost earnings from those injured and so on.
OTOH, you have the economic cost of people and goods not being able to get around quite as fast. In total, that's a significant cost. Getting the optimal balance is tricky.
In urban areas, you can look at the "market speed limit" for private roads, such as in holiday parks, shipyards, military bases etc etc. On average they tend to be a lot slower, which suggests that current limits are higher than the optimal urban speed.
Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).
There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.
Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.
The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.
I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
Yes. Reform despite all that face a choice. The tradition of not voting for the authoritarian right, or left, is quite strong. Farage's semi-admission into the playground rests on his disavowal of NF/BNP/EDL etc, and only using dog whistle tactics - which of course Tories have done in the past too.
Both Reform voters and Reform possibles are split. Many are of course populist 'strong man' extremists glad to have a party to support. But many are not. They are ordinary UK punters who belive (wrongly) that complex problems have simple solutions, fed up with mainstream politics just as millions of Americans were fed up with Democrats.
In the British system the "strong man" isn't needed. Elect a majority government and they can largely do as they see fit. Reform's pitch could be as simple as:
We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax We need to get value for money - so much of your money is being wasted by bureaucracy and silly agendas like equality officers We need to make work pay, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect a Reform government and we'll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there, and make our country fit for purpose again.
None of these are remotely easy. Many are contradictory. But there is enough truth in each point to sound compelling, especially if it can tie in with the massive fraud and waste which these voters believe is there to cut.
"Are you thinking what we're thinking?" asked Michael Howard, to be answered with "oh hell no" by the electorate. But reverse it - "We're thinking what YOU'RE thinking" and Reform can absolutely smash it.
The key to it? Labour's pledge card. 5 things we'd do. Simplistic but ambitious. Easy to attack but hard to disprove. On continuous repeat until they become ingrained. Once the pledges become the truth, its practically impossible to disarm them with facts.
Very very few people can ever pull this off. Blair did. Farage can.
Eek. Please @RochdalePioneers don't make posts like this. I'm struggling to think of a better post for Reform to use to campaign on. It is excellent and horrendously disturbing at the same time.
The horror is that they are *already saying this*. Just not distilled out into a coherent message yet.
Labour could head this off, but they're myopic and unable to see the big picture.
TSE has called for headers. With very little work, that post would provide a decent one.
Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.
Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.
Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.
Why are we there?
At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America: 1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals 2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals 3. Makes peace with Russia 4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions
I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
Zelensky has made clear he is not giving Trump his minerals
Let's hope he can maintain that position, and deny the mango Mussolini any reward for his perfidy.
Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.
Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.
Never going to happen.
Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.
They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.
That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.
Law is accreting around this issue.
The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
People kill and maim other people every day whilst allegedly in control of cars. Banning humans from driving is the only way.
On that grounds motorcyclists and cyclists have also killed people so you would have to ban them too
Yup, ban 'em all.
There is a sober, sensible debate to be had over this:
- QALY. Victims of road collisions tend to be younger, in employment, fitter than the general population. Your cycle commuter, for example, tends to be a high-earner in their 20s/30s, so the comparison to COVID lockdowns is a little lazy. - There is a significant economic cost associated with collisions, whether from the emergency services (£2 million per fatality), insurance costs (70% of your premium, or about £8 billion a year), lost earnings from those injured and so on.
OTOH, you have the economic cost of people and goods not being able to get around quite as fast. In total, that's a significant cost. Getting the optimal balance is tricky.
In urban areas, you can look at the "market speed limit" for private roads, such as in holiday parks, shipyards, military bases etc etc. On average they tend to be a lot slower, which suggests that current limits are higher than the optimal urban speed.
The point being overlooked about self-driving cars is not that they will to won't kill people, as all vehicles will. It's rather, I suspect, that people object to the possibility of being killed by a company conducting what amounts to an experiment.
More to do with the psychology (and possibly Musk's evidently blase attitude towards other folk's safety) than the actual odds.
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Remember the context - we're talking about "facts", not facts.
Two contradictory positions are true: There are more GP appointments being made available There are is a shortage of GPs, especially in localised pockets
Because the NHSes are shit sandwiches, there is both more appointments available in each nation and a catastrophic inability to see *my* GP at *my* practice. And because most people see a GP infrequently, they don't have the lived experience to disprove the narrative that you can't see a GP.
Its the 'it takes months to renew your passport' bollox on a bigger scale.
Well Labour were happy to peddle 'Broken Britain' bollox in opposition so they will now have to deal with it in government.
But *it isn't bollocks*. You want to tell the people who genuinely struggle to see a GP that its bollocks? Where their local practice opens the phone lines at 08:30, it's endlessly engaged and as and when you get through they offer an appointment weeks away?
This is why the system is fundamentally broken and needs significant reform. The patient interface is set at a local level and for so many people its desperately poor, regardless of the national statistics that politicians sneeringly recite.
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Its a very mixed picture. I live in a smallish market town with about 18000 people and one GP practice. It is easy to access certain kinds of healthcare - if you are prepared to ring at the right time and describe your symptoms to the receptionist (who don't forget has days of medical training behind her, and years watching Holby City). But sometimes you can't get through. Sometimes its easier to queue outside the surgery to get the said receptionist. And when you get there you end up with an appointment to see a paramedic who is dealing with the chest infections. Or a nurse practitioner. And so on.
Don't think I've 'seen' a GP in three years, but had many interactions at the surgery.
There are many issues. If you know what you need and how best to access it the system works ok. My run of infant caused chest infections last year was dealt with pretty well. But if you are not so clued up it can be an immense frustration.
I also fully understand why many people do not like triage by receptionist. In reality they are working like the 111 service, sorting out the best place for you to go, but in pisses people off that they have to explain what can be intimate issues to Babs on the desk, rather than a clinician.
Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.
Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.
Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.
Why are we there?
At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America: 1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals 2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals 3. Makes peace with Russia 4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions
I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
Zelensky has made clear he is not giving Trump his minerals
Putin has now offered Russian minerals to Trump saying "we've got more minerals than Ukraine"
Well if Putin wants to give away half his minerals to Trump that is up to him
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Its a very mixed picture. I live in a smallish market town with about 18000 people and one GP practice. It is easy to access certain kinds of healthcare - if you are prepared to ring at the right time and describe your symptoms to the receptionist (who don't forget has days of medical training behind her, and years watching Holby City). But sometimes you can't get through. Sometimes its easier to queue outside the surgery to get the said receptionist. And when you get there you end up with an appointment to see a paramedic who is dealing with the chest infections. Or a nurse practitioner. And so on.
Don't think I've 'seen' a GP in three years, but had many interactions at the surgery.
There are many issues. If you know what you need and how best to access it the system works ok. My run of infant caused chest infections last year was dealt with pretty well. But if you are not so clued up it can be an immense frustration.
I also fully understand why many people do not like triage by receptionist. In reality they are working like the 111 service, sorting out the best place for you to go, but in pisses people off that they have to explain what can be intimate issues to Babs on the desk, rather than a clinician.
That surely is mainly about having receptionists and other staff knowing what they can and cannot judge, and what are appropriate staff for a reference?
My GP receptionist, for example, might offer me a nurse appt, say she can do it offline (eg reauthorise a prescription which I can then request online), suggest a Dr callback, or an appointment, an evening appointment, or a weekend appointment, an kept-clear emergency appointment if I got pushed out in the 8:30am phone rush, ask me to call 111, go to a MIU, or - in extremis - 999 or go to A&E.
I don't know if they have scripts as they do in Emergency Call Centres (I once dodged a bullet by turning down a contract to develop a database for one of those centres using MS Access).
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
It's not the greatest of things to be true but I think Labour's electoral interests are best served by RUK continuing to prosper. Because the party that remains the biggest threat as a rival for government, for all its current woes, is the Conservative party. If RUK fall away, the main political impact will be to put them, the most prolific winners of elections there has ever been, right back in the game.
Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.
Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.
Never going to happen.
Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.
They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.
That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.
Law is accreting around this issue.
The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
People kill and maim other people every day whilst allegedly in control of cars. Banning humans from driving is the only way.
On that grounds motorcyclists and cyclists have also killed people so you would have to ban them too
Yup, ban 'em all.
There is a sober, sensible debate to be had over this:
- QALY. Victims of road collisions tend to be younger, in employment, fitter than the general population. Your cycle commuter, for example, tends to be a high-earner in their 20s/30s, so the comparison to COVID lockdowns is a little lazy. - There is a significant economic cost associated with collisions, whether from the emergency services (£2 million per fatality), insurance costs (70% of your premium, or about £8 billion a year), lost earnings from those injured and so on.
OTOH, you have the economic cost of people and goods not being able to get around quite as fast. In total, that's a significant cost. Getting the optimal balance is tricky.
In urban areas, you can look at the "market speed limit" for private roads, such as in holiday parks, shipyards, military bases etc etc. On average they tend to be a lot slower, which suggests that current limits are higher than the optimal urban speed.
In urban areas you see endless drivers rushing to get to the back of the queue to get through the next junction. Clearly it would be optimal for everyone if they pootled along at whatever speed the actual average was, reducing both the likelihood & severity of potential incidents along the way.
But when you tell people to do 20 instead of 30 in a city with a mean speed of 19mph they go beserk, because people hate being told what to do if it’s different from what they’re used to. Such is the business of politics.
'Energy bills for a typical household will rise by more than £100 a year in April under regulator Ofgem's new cap - a higher-than-expected increase adding pressure on people's finances.'
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
It's not the greatest of things to be true but I think Labour's electoral interests are best served by RUK continuing to prosper. Because the party that remains the biggest threat as a rival for government, for all its current woes, is the Conservative party. If RUK fall away, the main political impact will be to put them, the most prolific winners of elections there has ever been, right back in the game.
Going into an election - having a completely unpalatable Reform as the main opposition would do wonders for Labour when you look at “pick least worst option with a chance of winning” voters
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Its a very mixed picture. I live in a smallish market town with about 18000 people and one GP practice. It is easy to access certain kinds of healthcare - if you are prepared to ring at the right time and describe your symptoms to the receptionist (who don't forget has days of medical training behind her, and years watching Holby City). But sometimes you can't get through. Sometimes its easier to queue outside the surgery to get the said receptionist. And when you get there you end up with an appointment to see a paramedic who is dealing with the chest infections. Or a nurse practitioner. And so on.
Don't think I've 'seen' a GP in three years, but had many interactions at the surgery.
There are many issues. If you know what you need and how best to access it the system works ok. My run of infant caused chest infections last year was dealt with pretty well. But if you are not so clued up it can be an immense frustration.
I also fully understand why many people do not like triage by receptionist. In reality they are working like the 111 service, sorting out the best place for you to go, but in pisses people off that they have to explain what can be intimate issues to Babs on the desk, rather than a clinician.
That surely is mainly about having receptionists and other staff knowing what they can and cannot judge, and what are appropriate staff for a reference?
My GP receptionist, for example, might offer me a nurse appt, say she can do it offline (eg reauthorise a prescription which I can then request online, suggest a Dr callback, or an appointment, an evening appointment, or a weekend appointment, an kept-clear emergency appointment if I got pushed out in the 9:30am phone rush, ask me to call 111, go to a MIU, or - in extremis - 999 or go to A&E).
I don't know if they have scripts as they do in Emergency Call Centres (I once dodged a bullet by turning down a contract to develop a database for one of those centres using MS Access).
I know *why* they do it, but it still feels wrong to many. The bigger point is that primary healthcare now is much more than just a GP. So many more types of medical staff seeing patients - nurses, paramedics (can prescribe, so my surgery uses them for chest infections etc). Pharmacists are getting in on the act now with Pharmacy first (a limited set of conditions that your pharmacist can now prescribe you medication for e.g impetigo, simple UTI's in women and so on). Also pharmacist prescribers are now bedding in at GP surgeries too.
One starts to wonder what a GP will actually do in a few years...
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Its a very mixed picture. I live in a smallish market town with about 18000 people and one GP practice. It is easy to access certain kinds of healthcare - if you are prepared to ring at the right time and describe your symptoms to the receptionist (who don't forget has days of medical training behind her, and years watching Holby City). But sometimes you can't get through. Sometimes its easier to queue outside the surgery to get the said receptionist. And when you get there you end up with an appointment to see a paramedic who is dealing with the chest infections. Or a nurse practitioner. And so on.
Don't think I've 'seen' a GP in three years, but had many interactions at the surgery.
There are many issues. If you know what you need and how best to access it the system works ok. My run of infant caused chest infections last year was dealt with pretty well. But if you are not so clued up it can be an immense frustration.
I also fully understand why many people do not like triage by receptionist. In reality they are working like the 111 service, sorting out the best place for you to go, but in pisses people off that they have to explain what can be intimate issues to Babs on the desk, rather than a clinician.
That surely is mainly about having receptionists and other staff knowing what they can and cannot judge, and what are appropriate staff for a reference?
My GP receptionist, for example, might offer me a nurse appt, say she can do it offline (eg reauthorise a prescription which I can then request online, suggest a Dr callback, or an appointment, an evening appointment, or a weekend appointment, an kept-clear emergency appointment if I got pushed out in the 9:30am phone rush, ask me to call 111, go to a MIU, or - in extremis - 999 or go to A&E).
I don't know if they have scripts as they do in Emergency Call Centres (I once dodged a bullet by turning down a contract to develop a database for one of those centres using MS Access).
There are well-managed GP practices and others ..... not so good. In the small town where I live the management is good and most people seem to have good experiences. In the next town, from what I hear now, and from I personally experienced when working for the NHS ..... not so good.
Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).
There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.
Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.
The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.
I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
Yes. Reform despite all that face a choice. The tradition of not voting for the authoritarian right, or left, is quite strong. Farage's semi-admission into the playground rests on his disavowal of NF/BNP/EDL etc, and only using dog whistle tactics - which of course Tories have done in the past too.
Both Reform voters and Reform possibles are split. Many are of course populist 'strong man' extremists glad to have a party to support. But many are not. They are ordinary UK punters who belive (wrongly) that complex problems have simple solutions, fed up with mainstream politics just as millions of Americans were fed up with Democrats.
In the British system the "strong man" isn't needed. Elect a majority government and they can largely do as they see fit. Reform's pitch could be as simple as:
We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax We need to get value for money - so much of your money is being wasted by bureaucracy and silly agendas like equality officers We need to make work pay, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect a Reform government and we'll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there, and make our country fit for purpose again.
None of these are remotely easy. Many are contradictory. But there is enough truth in each point to sound compelling, especially if it can tie in with the massive fraud and waste which these voters believe is there to cut.
"Are you thinking what we're thinking?" asked Michael Howard, to be answered with "oh hell no" by the electorate. But reverse it - "We're thinking what YOU'RE thinking" and Reform can absolutely smash it.
The key to it? Labour's pledge card. 5 things we'd do. Simplistic but ambitious. Easy to attack but hard to disprove. On continuous repeat until they become ingrained. Once the pledges become the truth, its practically impossible to disarm them with facts.
Very very few people can ever pull this off. Blair did. Farage can.
Eek. Please @RochdalePioneers don't make posts like this. I'm struggling to think of a better post for Reform to use to campaign on. It is excellent and horrendously disturbing at the same time.
The horror is that they are *already saying this*. Just not distilled out into a coherent message yet.
Labour could head this off, but they're myopic and unable to see the big picture.
TSE has called for headers. With very little work, that post would provide a decent one.
Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.
Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.
Never going to happen.
Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.
They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.
That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.
Law is accreting around this issue.
The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
People kill and maim other people every day whilst allegedly in control of cars. Banning humans from driving is the only way.
On that grounds motorcyclists and cyclists have also killed people so you would have to ban them too
Yup, ban 'em all.
There is a sober, sensible debate to be had over this:
- QALY. Victims of road collisions tend to be younger, in employment, fitter than the general population. Your cycle commuter, for example, tends to be a high-earner in their 20s/30s, so the comparison to COVID lockdowns is a little lazy. - There is a significant economic cost associated with collisions, whether from the emergency services (£2 million per fatality), insurance costs (70% of your premium, or about £8 billion a year), lost earnings from those injured and so on.
OTOH, you have the economic cost of people and goods not being able to get around quite as fast. In total, that's a significant cost. Getting the optimal balance is tricky.
In urban areas, you can look at the "market speed limit" for private roads, such as in holiday parks, shipyards, military bases etc etc. On average they tend to be a lot slower, which suggests that current limits are higher than the optimal urban speed.
In urban areas you see endless drivers rushing to get to the back of the queue to get through the next junction. Clearly it would be optimal for everyone if they pootled along at whatever speed the actual average was, reducing both the likelihood & severity of potential incidents along the way.
But when you tell people to do 20 instead of 30 in a city with a mean speed of 19mph they go beserk, because people hate being told what to do if it’s different from what they’re used to. Such is the business of politics.
But that's essentially a process of cultural adjustment.
We did it for drunk driving - though there has been backsliding in some measure since 2010, and a lack of will for further progression since (estd) 2000.
And we can do it for distracted driving and speeding, too.
Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).
There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.
Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.
The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.
I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
Yes. Reform despite all that face a choice. The tradition of not voting for the authoritarian right, or left, is quite strong. Farage's semi-admission into the playground rests on his disavowal of NF/BNP/EDL etc, and only using dog whistle tactics - which of course Tories have done in the past too.
Both Reform voters and Reform possibles are split. Many are of course populist 'strong man' extremists glad to have a party to support. But many are not. They are ordinary UK punters who belive (wrongly) that complex problems have simple solutions, fed up with mainstream politics just as millions of Americans were fed up with Democrats.
In the British system the "strong man" isn't needed. Elect a majority government and they can largely do as they see fit. Reform's pitch could be as simple as:
We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax We need to get value for money - so much of your money is being wasted by bureaucracy and silly agendas like equality officers We need to make work pay, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect a Reform government and we'll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there, and make our country fit for purpose again.
None of these are remotely easy. Many are contradictory. But there is enough truth in each point to sound compelling, especially if it can tie in with the massive fraud and waste which these voters believe is there to cut.
"Are you thinking what we're thinking?" asked Michael Howard, to be answered with "oh hell no" by the electorate. But reverse it - "We're thinking what YOU'RE thinking" and Reform can absolutely smash it.
The key to it? Labour's pledge card. 5 things we'd do. Simplistic but ambitious. Easy to attack but hard to disprove. On continuous repeat until they become ingrained. Once the pledges become the truth, its practically impossible to disarm them with facts.
Very very few people can ever pull this off. Blair did. Farage can.
Eek. Please @RochdalePioneers don't make posts like this. I'm struggling to think of a better post for Reform to use to campaign on. It is excellent and horrendously disturbing at the same time.
I can see no element in it, DEI excepted, which, in some language or another, is not the goal of all major parties.
Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.
Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.
Never going to happen.
Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.
They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.
That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.
Law is accreting around this issue.
The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
People kill and maim other people every day whilst allegedly in control of cars. Banning humans from driving is the only way.
On that grounds motorcyclists and cyclists have also killed people so you would have to ban them too
Yup, ban 'em all.
There is a sober, sensible debate to be had over this:
- QALY. Victims of road collisions tend to be younger, in employment, fitter than the general population. Your cycle commuter, for example, tends to be a high-earner in their 20s/30s, so the comparison to COVID lockdowns is a little lazy. - There is a significant economic cost associated with collisions, whether from the emergency services (£2 million per fatality), insurance costs (70% of your premium, or about £8 billion a year), lost earnings from those injured and so on.
OTOH, you have the economic cost of people and goods not being able to get around quite as fast. In total, that's a significant cost. Getting the optimal balance is tricky.
In urban areas, you can look at the "market speed limit" for private roads, such as in holiday parks, shipyards, military bases etc etc. On average they tend to be a lot slower, which suggests that current limits are higher than the optimal urban speed.
In urban areas you see endless drivers rushing to get to the back of the queue to get through the next junction. Clearly it would be optimal for everyone if they pootled along at whatever speed the actual average was, reducing both the likelihood & severity of potential incidents along the way.
But when you tell people to do 20 instead of 30 in a city with a mean speed of 19mph they go beserk, because people hate being told what to do if it’s different from what they’re used to. Such is the business of politics.
But that's essentially a process of cultural adjustment.
We did it for drunk driving - though there has been backsliding in some measure since 2010, and a lack of will for further progression since (estd) 2000.
And we can do it for distracted driving and speeding, too.
Indeed. The next generation of drivers will be used to 20mph limits & see them as the norm.
Self driving won’t affect the mean speed of traffic in urban areas because it’s ultimately limited by junction capacity & congestion levels.
Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.
Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.
Never going to happen.
Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.
They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.
That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.
Law is accreting around this issue.
The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
People kill and maim other people every day whilst allegedly in control of cars. Banning humans from driving is the only way.
On that grounds motorcyclists and cyclists have also killed people so you would have to ban them too
Yup, ban 'em all.
There is a sober, sensible debate to be had over this:
- QALY. Victims of road collisions tend to be younger, in employment, fitter than the general population. Your cycle commuter, for example, tends to be a high-earner in their 20s/30s, so the comparison to COVID lockdowns is a little lazy. - There is a significant economic cost associated with collisions, whether from the emergency services (£2 million per fatality), insurance costs (70% of your premium, or about £8 billion a year), lost earnings from those injured and so on.
OTOH, you have the economic cost of people and goods not being able to get around quite as fast. In total, that's a significant cost. Getting the optimal balance is tricky.
In urban areas, you can look at the "market speed limit" for private roads, such as in holiday parks, shipyards, military bases etc etc. On average they tend to be a lot slower, which suggests that current limits are higher than the optimal urban speed.
In urban areas you see endless drivers rushing to get to the back of the queue to get through the next junction. Clearly it would be optimal for everyone if they pootled along at whatever speed the actual average was, reducing both the likelihood & severity of potential incidents along the way.
But when you tell people to do 20 instead of 30 in a city with a mean speed of 19mph they go beserk, because people hate being told what to do if it’s different from what they’re used to. Such is the business of politics.
But that's essentially a process of cultural adjustment.
We did it for drunk driving - though there has been backsliding in some measure since 2010, and a lack of will for further progression since (estd) 2000.
And we can do it for distracted driving and speeding, too.
My YouTube videos show me often cruising at 65mph on the motorway. "Why are you going so slowly" some people ask. I then explain the science behind traffic flow and the impact of bunching. I may as well be speaking martian. "But 70mph is faster"
We used to do public information films. Despite having brilliant social media able to reach millions quickly we've decided not to bother. TikTok advocating Vabbing (NSFW, don't look it up) rather than drive slower to get there quicker.
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
'Energy bills for a typical household will rise by more than £100 a year in April under regulator Ofgem's new cap - a higher-than-expected increase adding pressure on people's finances.'
At least it is April and you can turn the heating off. (Although my electric bill goes up slightly in the summer, I think I spend more on refrigeration than electric lighting)
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
We don't have enough green energy. We still use lots of gas for heating, cooking and electricity generation, and gas prices are around twice what they were this time last year (though nowhere near the peaks reached just after Russia's invasion of Ukraine).
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
What I cannot understand is why new houses ..... and there seem to be thousands in Essex .... are not built with solar panels as standard
I also wonder this and came to the conclusion that the government thinks it's hard enough to get houses built as it is, the extra cost would be another blocker.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
Because electricity prices are set on the margin and the margin is based on the price of gas when converted into electricity
Which suits the energy companies, who lobby strongly against ideas like regional pricing of electricity (which if done right, could lower the cost for everyone, as it would strongly incentivise the use of currently wasted renewable generation).
It's not a simple subject, as there would be short term problems (what would happen to the contract basis for new wind developments, for example), but the existing system is undeniably perverse, in several respects.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
Because electricity prices are set on the margin and the margin is based on the price of gas when converted into electricity
Can someone explain why A: why this method of setting prices was chosen and B: why it isn't being ditched? It seems like total madness - I need to buy 10 pounds of potatoes. I buy nine pounds from Aldi @ 10p, but that's all they have. So I go to Waitrose and buy the final pound at £1. I don't then go back to Aldi and gift them an extra £8
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
What I cannot understand is why new houses ..... and there seem to be thousands in Essex .... are not built with solar panels as standard.
Philosophically it is probably because the preference is to set a standard, rather than a mechanism.
eg In Berwick (or say Shetland), the balance between solar panels and extra insulation may be different from Cornwall.
So you don't mandate "do THIS", you mandate "be THIS efficient" - and the developer gets to choose the cost-effective way to do it.
IMO with solar panels we are probably at the point where it should be "solar panels unless there is an exceptional reason" (such as the sun is substantially blocked) - eg row of trees with TPOs, block of flats, big factory, mountain.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
What I cannot understand is why new houses ..... and there seem to be thousands in Essex .... are not built with solar panels as standard
I also wonder this and came to the conclusion that the government thinks it's hard enough to get houses built as it is, the extra cost would be another blocker.
Much cheaper than retrofitting it to existing properties, though.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
What I cannot understand is why new houses ..... and there seem to be thousands in Essex .... are not built with solar panels as standard
I also wonder this and came to the conclusion that the government thinks it's hard enough to get houses built as it is, the extra cost would be another blocker.
There doesn't seem to be a problem with new houses in Essex. Colchester and Maldon must be half as big again as they were ten years ago, to mention only two conurbations. And North Chelmsford is even bigger.
Tesla sales down 45% in Europe... twitter cratering and banks writing down their loans... his latest Grok model cost a fortune and still no better than competitors.... when are investors going to sour on Musk?
His investors are sovereigns who benefit from America’s diminished status
Think of it like better for the party you want to lose an election
The valuation of the company is based on future tech - not building cars. The Big Bet is that future vehicles will be automated and AI. So Tesla have gone all in on automation and now all in on AI. Not sure that I agree, but that's the rationale behind the crazy market valuation.
A good friend is a GS13 and a chief engineer in charge of multiple navy programs. He was straight up told: “you’re going to get fire next week so I’ve made arrangements to have you brought back on as a contractor, congrats on the raise.” https://x.com/Fligherferhire/status/1893863409839464863
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
Because electricity prices are set on the margin and the margin is based on the price of gas when converted into electricity
Can someone explain why A: why this method of setting prices was chosen and B: why it isn't being ditched? It seems like total madness - I need to buy 10 pounds of potatoes. I buy nine pounds from Aldi @ 10p, but that's all they have. So I go to Waitrose and buy the final pound at £1. I don't then go back to Aldi and gift them an extra £8
Because if you need 10 pounds of potatoes, and Aldi only has 9, then, in a rational and transparent market, Aldi will raise the price of its potatoes to match that of Waitrose.
Edit: Basically it makes no economic sense for the cheaper suppliers to greatly undercut the expensive suppliers if demand is relatively rigid and the cheaper suppliers are unable to meet that demand. That, I think, is what is meant by price being set at the margin. (But I'm not an economist.)
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
Because electricity prices are set on the margin and the margin is based on the price of gas when converted into electricity
Can someone explain why A: why this method of setting prices was chosen and B: why it isn't being ditched? It seems like total madness - I need to buy 10 pounds of potatoes. I buy nine pounds from Aldi @ 10p, but that's all they have. So I go to Waitrose and buy the final pound at £1. I don't then go back to Aldi and gift them an extra £8
Because if you need 10 pounds of potatoes, and Aldi only has 9, then, in a rational and transparent market, Aldi will raise the price of its potatoes to match that of Waitrose.
It’s probably why you never see that example in the real world. Potato prices are probably pretty uniform.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
Because electricity prices are set on the margin and the margin is based on the price of gas when converted into electricity
Can someone explain why A: why this method of setting prices was chosen and B: why it isn't being ditched? It seems like total madness - I need to buy 10 pounds of potatoes. I buy nine pounds from Aldi @ 10p, but that's all they have. So I go to Waitrose and buy the final pound at £1. I don't then go back to Aldi and gift them an extra £8
The opposite argument to yours is: why should inefficient suppliers of expensive energy be allowed to make the same profit as efficient suppliers of cheaper energy?
Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).
There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.
Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.
The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.
I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
Yes. Reform despite all that face a choice. The tradition of not voting for the authoritarian right, or left, is quite strong. Farage's semi-admission into the playground rests on his disavowal of NF/BNP/EDL etc, and only using dog whistle tactics - which of course Tories have done in the past too.
Both Reform voters and Reform possibles are split. Many are of course populist 'strong man' extremists glad to have a party to support. But many are not. They are ordinary UK punters who belive (wrongly) that complex problems have simple solutions, fed up with mainstream politics just as millions of Americans were fed up with Democrats.
In the British system the "strong man" isn't needed. Elect a majority government and they can largely do as they see fit. Reform's pitch could be as simple as:
We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax We need to get value for money - so much of your money is being wasted by bureaucracy and silly agendas like equality officers We need to make work pay, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect a Reform government and we'll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there, and make our country fit for purpose again.
None of these are remotely easy. Many are contradictory. But there is enough truth in each point to sound compelling, especially if it can tie in with the massive fraud and waste which these voters believe is there to cut.
"Are you thinking what we're thinking?" asked Michael Howard, to be answered with "oh hell no" by the electorate. But reverse it - "We're thinking what YOU'RE thinking" and Reform can absolutely smash it.
The key to it? Labour's pledge card. 5 things we'd do. Simplistic but ambitious. Easy to attack but hard to disprove. On continuous repeat until they become ingrained. Once the pledges become the truth, its practically impossible to disarm them with facts.
Very very few people can ever pull this off. Blair did. Farage can.
Eek. Please @RochdalePioneers don't make posts like this. I'm struggling to think of a better post for Reform to use to campaign on. It is excellent and horrendously disturbing at the same time.
The horror is that they are *already saying this*. Just not distilled out into a coherent message yet.
Labour could head this off, but they're myopic and unable to see the big picture.
TSE has called for headers. With very little work, that post would provide a decent one.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
We don't have enough green energy. We still use lots of gas for heating, cooking and electricity generation, and gas prices are around twice what they were this time last year (though nowhere near the peaks reached just after Russia's invasion of Ukraine).
Worth noting that the fixed contracts we have for renewable generation saved us a significant chunk of cash during the Ukraine invasion, giving the government more wriggle room when composing a response.
If I was feeling conspiratorial, I'd suggest much of the opposition to renewables comes from people who want our economy to be as exposed to Russia's machinations as possible.
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Remember the context - we're talking about "facts", not facts.
Two contradictory positions are true: There are more GP appointments being made available There are is a shortage of GPs, especially in localised pockets
Because the NHSes are shit sandwiches, there is both more appointments available in each nation and a catastrophic inability to see *my* GP at *my* practice. And because most people see a GP infrequently, they don't have the lived experience to disprove the narrative that you can't see a GP.
Its the 'it takes months to renew your passport' bollox on a bigger scale.
Well Labour were happy to peddle 'Broken Britain' bollox in opposition so they will now have to deal with it in government.
But *it isn't bollocks*. You want to tell the people who genuinely struggle to see a GP that its bollocks? Where their local practice opens the phone lines at 08:30, it's endlessly engaged and as and when you get through they offer an appointment weeks away?
This is why the system is fundamentally broken and needs significant reform. The patient interface is set at a local level and for so many people its desperately poor, regardless of the national statistics that politicians sneeringly recite.
Telling people its impossible to get a GP appointment when they would have no problem in doing so is bollox.
Telling people it takes months to renew a passport when it takes a week is bollox.
All it results in is people thinking the country is in a lot worse shape than it is which in turn feeds through to support for the political extremes.
Yes, some people have some problems - so governments should concentrate on resolving them instead of bewailing and doomcasting.
Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).
There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.
Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.
The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.
I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
Yes. Reform despite all that face a choice. The tradition of not voting for the authoritarian right, or left, is quite strong. Farage's semi-admission into the playground rests on his disavowal of NF/BNP/EDL etc, and only using dog whistle tactics - which of course Tories have done in the past too.
Both Reform voters and Reform possibles are split. Many are of course populist 'strong man' extremists glad to have a party to support. But many are not. They are ordinary UK punters who belive (wrongly) that complex problems have simple solutions, fed up with mainstream politics just as millions of Americans were fed up with Democrats.
In the British system the "strong man" isn't needed. Elect a majority government and they can largely do as they see fit. Reform's pitch could be as simple as:
We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax We need to get value for money - so much of your money is being wasted by bureaucracy and silly agendas like equality officers We need to make work pay, and that means cutting the cost of living We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops Elect a Reform government and we'll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there, and make our country fit for purpose again.
None of these are remotely easy. Many are contradictory. But there is enough truth in each point to sound compelling, especially if it can tie in with the massive fraud and waste which these voters believe is there to cut.
"Are you thinking what we're thinking?" asked Michael Howard, to be answered with "oh hell no" by the electorate. But reverse it - "We're thinking what YOU'RE thinking" and Reform can absolutely smash it.
The key to it? Labour's pledge card. 5 things we'd do. Simplistic but ambitious. Easy to attack but hard to disprove. On continuous repeat until they become ingrained. Once the pledges become the truth, its practically impossible to disarm them with facts.
Very very few people can ever pull this off. Blair did. Farage can.
Eek. Please @RochdalePioneers don't make posts like this. I'm struggling to think of a better post for Reform to use to campaign on. It is excellent and horrendously disturbing at the same time.
The horror is that they are *already saying this*. Just not distilled out into a coherent message yet.
Labour could head this off, but they're myopic and unable to see the big picture.
TSE has called for headers. With very little work, that post would provide a decent one.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
Because electricity prices are set on the margin and the margin is based on the price of gas when converted into electricity
Can someone explain why A: why this method of setting prices was chosen and B: why it isn't being ditched? It seems like total madness - I need to buy 10 pounds of potatoes. I buy nine pounds from Aldi @ 10p, but that's all they have. So I go to Waitrose and buy the final pound at £1. I don't then go back to Aldi and gift them an extra £8
Because if you need 10 pounds of potatoes, and Aldi only has 9, then, in a rational and transparent market, Aldi will raise the price of its potatoes to match that of Waitrose.
Edit: Basically it makes no economic sense for the cheaper suppliers to greatly undercut the expensive suppliers if demand is relatively rigid and the cheaper suppliers are unable to meet that demand. That, I think, is what is meant by price being set at the margin. (But I'm not an economist.)
But surely this means that the green suppliers are going to run bitcoin miners or similar to make sure we always use at least one joule of gas?
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
I’m not sure I would categorise a law allowing the police to enter and search homes without a warrant as a positive development.
If it retrieves more stolen phones it could be a positive, though I assume a good reason for suspicion a stolen phone is on the premises would be required
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
Because electricity prices are set on the margin and the margin is based on the price of gas when converted into electricity
Can someone explain why A: why this method of setting prices was chosen and B: why it isn't being ditched? It seems like total madness - I need to buy 10 pounds of potatoes. I buy nine pounds from Aldi @ 10p, but that's all they have. So I go to Waitrose and buy the final pound at £1. I don't then go back to Aldi and gift them an extra £8
Because if you need 10 pounds of potatoes, and Aldi only has 9, then, in a rational and transparent market, Aldi will raise the price of its potatoes to match that of Waitrose.
Edit: Basically it makes no economic sense for the cheaper suppliers to greatly undercut the expensive suppliers if demand is relatively rigid and the cheaper suppliers are unable to meet that demand. That, I think, is what is meant by price being set at the margin. (But I'm not an economist.)
But surely this means that the green suppliers are going to run bitcoin miners or similar to make sure we always use at least one joule of gas?
That's not necessarily a bad thing if it means the UK becomes a power generating and power consuming powerhouse. Our economy might rocket.
Scotland has 16GW of renewables, already exports energy, and has additional 57GW under construction or in planning. The big question is wtf are we going to do with it all.
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
I’m not sure I would categorise a law allowing the police to enter and search homes without a warrant as a positive development.
If it retrieves more stolen phones it could be a positive, though I assume a good reason for suspicion a stolen phone is on the premises would be required
The reason is, or includes, information from one of those tracking thingies.
It is, apparently, a response to remote tracking and the many people who tell PC Plod that their phone/bike/parcel/etc is pinned down by a tracker app in building X or garage Y and can't understand why Plod DGAF.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
Because electricity prices are set on the margin and the margin is based on the price of gas when converted into electricity
Can someone explain why A: why this method of setting prices was chosen and B: why it isn't being ditched? It seems like total madness - I need to buy 10 pounds of potatoes. I buy nine pounds from Aldi @ 10p, but that's all they have. So I go to Waitrose and buy the final pound at £1. I don't then go back to Aldi and gift them an extra £8
Because if you need 10 pounds of potatoes, and Aldi only has 9, then, in a rational and transparent market, Aldi will raise the price of its potatoes to match that of Waitrose.
Edit: Basically it makes no economic sense for the cheaper suppliers to greatly undercut the expensive suppliers if demand is relatively rigid and the cheaper suppliers are unable to meet that demand. That, I think, is what is meant by price being set at the margin. (But I'm not an economist.)
But surely this means that the green suppliers are going to run bitcoin miners or similar to make sure we always use at least one joule of gas?
That's not necessarily a bad thing if it means the UK becomes a power generating and power consuming powerhouse. Our economy might rocket.
Scotland has 16GW of renewables, already exports energy, and has additional 57GW under construction or in planning. The big question is wtf are we going to do with it all.
No issue with any of that - seems great on a national scale. But on the retail scale I'm still paying the gas price for my lighting. Surely there is an electoral offer that could be made to be made to change this system that would be attractive? Why is no-one offering it?
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Remember the context - we're talking about "facts", not facts.
Two contradictory positions are true: There are more GP appointments being made available There are is a shortage of GPs, especially in localised pockets
Because the NHSes are shit sandwiches, there is both more appointments available in each nation and a catastrophic inability to see *my* GP at *my* practice. And because most people see a GP infrequently, they don't have the lived experience to disprove the narrative that you can't see a GP.
Its the 'it takes months to renew your passport' bollox on a bigger scale.
Well Labour were happy to peddle 'Broken Britain' bollox in opposition so they will now have to deal with it in government.
But *it isn't bollocks*. You want to tell the people who genuinely struggle to see a GP that its bollocks? Where their local practice opens the phone lines at 08:30, it's endlessly engaged and as and when you get through they offer an appointment weeks away?
This is why the system is fundamentally broken and needs significant reform. The patient interface is set at a local level and for so many people its desperately poor, regardless of the national statistics that politicians sneeringly recite.
Telling people its impossible to get a GP appointment when they would have no problem in doing so is bollox.
Telling people it takes months to renew a passport when it takes a week is bollox.
All it results in is people thinking the country is in a lot worse shape than it is which in turn feeds through to support for the political extremes.
Yes, some people have some problems - so governments should concentrate on resolving them instead of bewailing and doomcasting.
For a large number of people getting GP appointments is very difficult.
Our local practise merged with another. Now it’s appointment only by filling in a multi page online form. During business hours. Yes, they disable it before 8:30am and after 5pm.
Not sure what people who find multi-page web forms difficult, are supposed to do…
About 50% of the time they fail to follow up.
They got very snotty at a community meeting, when all the questions were hostile. Wrong kind of patients, apparently.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
Because electricity prices are set on the margin and the margin is based on the price of gas when converted into electricity
Can someone explain why A: why this method of setting prices was chosen and B: why it isn't being ditched? It seems like total madness - I need to buy 10 pounds of potatoes. I buy nine pounds from Aldi @ 10p, but that's all they have. So I go to Waitrose and buy the final pound at £1. I don't then go back to Aldi and gift them an extra £8
Because if you need 10 pounds of potatoes, and Aldi only has 9, then, in a rational and transparent market, Aldi will raise the price of its potatoes to match that of Waitrose.
It’s probably why you never see that example in the real world. Potato prices are probably pretty uniform.
Sadly, energy is like a commodity, which can vary in price due to scarcity. Another plaything for the stock exchange and oligarchs and millionaires.
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
I’m not sure I would categorise a law allowing the police to enter and search homes without a warrant as a positive development.
If it retrieves more stolen phones it could be a positive, though I assume a good reason for suspicion a stolen phone is on the premises would be required
The reason is, or includes, information from one of those tracking thingies.
It is, apparently, a response to remote tracking and the many people who tell PC Plod that their phone/bike/parcel/etc is pinned down by a tracker app in building X or garage Y and can't understand why Plod DGAF.
I wonder when the first case of “Plod dropped a phone in his pocket/car and used that as an excuse” happens.
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
I’m not sure I would categorise a law allowing the police to enter and search homes without a warrant as a positive development.
If it retrieves more stolen phones it could be a positive, though I assume a good reason for suspicion a stolen phone is on the premises would be required
The reason is, or includes, information from one of those tracking thingies.
It is, apparently, a response to remote tracking and the many people who tell PC Plod that their phone/bike/parcel/etc is pinned down by a tracker app in building X or garage Y and can't understand why Plod DGAF.
They can surely get a warrant? They just can’t be bothered.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
Because electricity prices are set on the margin and the margin is based on the price of gas when converted into electricity
Can someone explain why A: why this method of setting prices was chosen and B: why it isn't being ditched? It seems like total madness - I need to buy 10 pounds of potatoes. I buy nine pounds from Aldi @ 10p, but that's all they have. So I go to Waitrose and buy the final pound at £1. I don't then go back to Aldi and gift them an extra £8
Because if you need 10 pounds of potatoes, and Aldi only has 9, then, in a rational and transparent market, Aldi will raise the price of its potatoes to match that of Waitrose.
Edit: Basically it makes no economic sense for the cheaper suppliers to greatly undercut the expensive suppliers if demand is relatively rigid and the cheaper suppliers are unable to meet that demand. That, I think, is what is meant by price being set at the margin. (But I'm not an economist.)
But surely this means that the green suppliers are going to run bitcoin miners or similar to make sure we always use at least one joule of gas?
That's not necessarily a bad thing if it means the UK becomes a power generating and power consuming powerhouse. Our economy might rocket.
Scotland has 16GW of renewables, already exports energy, and has additional 57GW under construction or in planning. The big question is wtf are we going to do with it all.
No issue with any of that - seems great on a national scale. But on the retail scale I'm still paying the gas price for my lighting. Surely there is an electoral offer that could be made to be made to change this system that would be attractive? Why is no-one offering it?
I'd guess that the market price of energy will be much lower as a result anyway, even after taking into account the additional demand more generation will induce.
But write to your MP. I think nodal/regional pricing and smart tariffs that track the hourly spot price of electricity are the way in which households could benefit in the medium-term.
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Remember the context - we're talking about "facts", not facts.
Two contradictory positions are true: There are more GP appointments being made available There are is a shortage of GPs, especially in localised pockets
Because the NHSes are shit sandwiches, there is both more appointments available in each nation and a catastrophic inability to see *my* GP at *my* practice. And because most people see a GP infrequently, they don't have the lived experience to disprove the narrative that you can't see a GP.
Its the 'it takes months to renew your passport' bollox on a bigger scale.
Well Labour were happy to peddle 'Broken Britain' bollox in opposition so they will now have to deal with it in government.
But *it isn't bollocks*. You want to tell the people who genuinely struggle to see a GP that its bollocks? Where their local practice opens the phone lines at 08:30, it's endlessly engaged and as and when you get through they offer an appointment weeks away?
This is why the system is fundamentally broken and needs significant reform. The patient interface is set at a local level and for so many people its desperately poor, regardless of the national statistics that politicians sneeringly recite.
Telling people its impossible to get a GP appointment when they would have no problem in doing so is bollox.
Telling people it takes months to renew a passport when it takes a week is bollox.
All it results in is people thinking the country is in a lot worse shape than it is which in turn feeds through to support for the political extremes.
Yes, some people have some problems - so governments should concentrate on resolving them instead of bewailing and doomcasting.
I think GPs need to be told that if they want to run their own business, there needs to be a risk of that business going bust. The problem is we can't easily go and get another primary healthcare provider if the one we have got is shit. In any sort of even slightly competitive market, all their customers would leave and they would go tits up
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
I’m not sure I would categorise a law allowing the police to enter and search homes without a warrant as a positive development.
From the article, it appears to be only when tracking devices on a stolen phone (and other items*) show it to be located in the property, so more limited than the phrasing suggests.
*phones are one thing - if it extends to air tags etc then there could be all kinds of fun with thieves detaching and lobbing tags through the nearest open window. Hopefully drafted tightly enough to counter that.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
What I cannot understand is why new houses ..... and there seem to be thousands in Essex .... are not built with solar panels as standard
I also wonder this and came to the conclusion that the government thinks it's hard enough to get houses built as it is, the extra cost would be another blocker.
Much cheaper than retrofitting it to existing properties, though.
I thought that solar panels were the cheapest form of roofing these days
I have had my teeth cleaned. There should be a German compound noun for the strange small but definite rush of pleasure that comes ONCE this mildly unpleasant procedure is complete
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
I’m not sure I would categorise a law allowing the police to enter and search homes without a warrant as a positive development.
If it retrieves more stolen phones it could be a positive, though I assume a good reason for suspicion a stolen phone is on the premises would be required
The reason is, or includes, information from one of those tracking thingies.
It is, apparently, a response to remote tracking and the many people who tell PC Plod that their phone/bike/parcel/etc is pinned down by a tracker app in building X or garage Y and can't understand why Plod DGAF.
They can surely get a warrant? They just can’t be bothered.
There is an element of lethargy I think. In reality there should be a magistrate permanently available to issue warrants at the drop of a hat.
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
I’m not sure I would categorise a law allowing the police to enter and search homes without a warrant as a positive development.
If it retrieves more stolen phones it could be a positive, though I assume a good reason for suspicion a stolen phone is on the premises would be required
The reason is, or includes, information from one of those tracking thingies.
It is, apparently, a response to remote tracking and the many people who tell PC Plod that their phone/bike/parcel/etc is pinned down by a tracker app in building X or garage Y and can't understand why Plod DGAF.
They can surely get a warrant? They just can’t be bothered.
The process to get a warrant is not simply - ring a judge and get one in 30 secs because Plod says so…
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
I’m not sure I would categorise a law allowing the police to enter and search homes without a warrant as a positive development.
If it retrieves more stolen phones it could be a positive, though I assume a good reason for suspicion a stolen phone is on the premises would be required
The reason is, or includes, information from one of those tracking thingies.
It is, apparently, a response to remote tracking and the many people who tell PC Plod that their phone/bike/parcel/etc is pinned down by a tracker app in building X or garage Y and can't understand why Plod DGAF.
They can surely get a warrant? They just can’t be bothered.
The process to get a warrant is not simply - ring a judge and get one in 30 secs because Plod says so…
Indeed, the system has protections against abuse, unlike the proposed changes. No judge/magistrate would refuse a warrant if there was clear evidence to support it.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
Because electricity prices are set on the margin and the margin is based on the price of gas when converted into electricity
Can someone explain why A: why this method of setting prices was chosen and B: why it isn't being ditched? It seems like total madness - I need to buy 10 pounds of potatoes. I buy nine pounds from Aldi @ 10p, but that's all they have. So I go to Waitrose and buy the final pound at £1. I don't then go back to Aldi and gift them an extra £8
Because if you need 10 pounds of potatoes, and Aldi only has 9, then, in a rational and transparent market, Aldi will raise the price of its potatoes to match that of Waitrose.
Edit: Basically it makes no economic sense for the cheaper suppliers to greatly undercut the expensive suppliers if demand is relatively rigid and the cheaper suppliers are unable to meet that demand. That, I think, is what is meant by price being set at the margin. (But I'm not an economist.)
But surely this means that the green suppliers are going to run bitcoin miners or similar to make sure we always use at least one joule of gas?
That's not necessarily a bad thing if it means the UK becomes a power generating and power consuming powerhouse. Our economy might rocket.
Scotland has 16GW of renewables, already exports energy, and has additional 57GW under construction or in planning. The big question is wtf are we going to do with it all.
No issue with any of that - seems great on a national scale. But on the retail scale I'm still paying the gas price for my lighting. Surely there is an electoral offer that could be made to be made to change this system that would be attractive? Why is no-one offering it?
Because it's been too complicated for most politicians to get their heads around, and, as I noted earlier, almost all the power companies lobby strongly against any change.
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Remember the context - we're talking about "facts", not facts.
Two contradictory positions are true: There are more GP appointments being made available There are is a shortage of GPs, especially in localised pockets
Because the NHSes are shit sandwiches, there is both more appointments available in each nation and a catastrophic inability to see *my* GP at *my* practice. And because most people see a GP infrequently, they don't have the lived experience to disprove the narrative that you can't see a GP.
Its the 'it takes months to renew your passport' bollox on a bigger scale.
Well Labour were happy to peddle 'Broken Britain' bollox in opposition so they will now have to deal with it in government.
But *it isn't bollocks*. You want to tell the people who genuinely struggle to see a GP that its bollocks? Where their local practice opens the phone lines at 08:30, it's endlessly engaged and as and when you get through they offer an appointment weeks away?
This is why the system is fundamentally broken and needs significant reform. The patient interface is set at a local level and for so many people its desperately poor, regardless of the national statistics that politicians sneeringly recite.
Telling people its impossible to get a GP appointment when they would have no problem in doing so is bollox.
Telling people it takes months to renew a passport when it takes a week is bollox.
All it results in is people thinking the country is in a lot worse shape than it is which in turn feeds through to support for the political extremes.
Yes, some people have some problems - so governments should concentrate on resolving them instead of bewailing and doomcasting.
For a large number of people getting GP appointments is very difficult.
Our local practise merged with another. Now it’s appointment only by filling in a multi page online form. During business hours. Yes, they disable it before 8:30am and after 5pm.
Not sure what people who find multi-page web forms difficult, are supposed to do…
About 50% of the time they fail to follow up.
They got very snotty at a community meeting, when all the questions were hostile. Wrong kind of patients, apparently.
Sorry to read that. Once upon a time, when I was concerned with these things, local management would have been along to 'have a word'. However, thanks to Lansley local management is now in the hands of GP's and they do tend to rally round each other when criticised.
Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.
However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.
If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.
The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.
The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.
Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
I'm curious as to who these people who are unable to see a GP are.
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Remember the context - we're talking about "facts", not facts.
Two contradictory positions are true: There are more GP appointments being made available There are is a shortage of GPs, especially in localised pockets
Because the NHSes are shit sandwiches, there is both more appointments available in each nation and a catastrophic inability to see *my* GP at *my* practice. And because most people see a GP infrequently, they don't have the lived experience to disprove the narrative that you can't see a GP.
Its the 'it takes months to renew your passport' bollox on a bigger scale.
Well Labour were happy to peddle 'Broken Britain' bollox in opposition so they will now have to deal with it in government.
But *it isn't bollocks*. You want to tell the people who genuinely struggle to see a GP that its bollocks? Where their local practice opens the phone lines at 08:30, it's endlessly engaged and as and when you get through they offer an appointment weeks away?
This is why the system is fundamentally broken and needs significant reform. The patient interface is set at a local level and for so many people its desperately poor, regardless of the national statistics that politicians sneeringly recite.
Telling people its impossible to get a GP appointment when they would have no problem in doing so is bollox.
Telling people it takes months to renew a passport when it takes a week is bollox.
All it results in is people thinking the country is in a lot worse shape than it is which in turn feeds through to support for the political extremes.
Yes, some people have some problems - so governments should concentrate on resolving them instead of bewailing and doomcasting.
I think GPs need to be told that if they want to run their own business, there needs to be a risk of that business going bust. The problem is we can't easily go and get another primary healthcare provider if the one we have got is shit. In any sort of even slightly competitive market, all their customers would leave and they would go tits up
Imagine if a supermarket stipulated that in order to buy some food you had to call at 8am, get in a phone queue, wait to be called back, offered a phone consultation any time between 2pm and 5pm and, on the basis of that, invited to go round immediately for a loaf of bread (if there's any left). This is how our GP's business works.
I can't understand why energy prices keep going up with all this super green energy we have?
What I cannot understand is why new houses ..... and there seem to be thousands in Essex .... are not built with solar panels as standard
I also wonder this and came to the conclusion that the government thinks it's hard enough to get houses built as it is, the extra cost would be another blocker.
Thing is, the cost when actually building a house would be really marginal. Main costs of solar - fitting (scaffolding/roof works), wiring in and the inverter/battery. The first two are absolutely minimal if you're building a house, compared to not having solar. The batter is the biggest cost and optional, but probably sensible to better shift demand and offset storage needs elsewhere. There's probably a business case for subsidising builders for those costs - if necessary - to massively increase national solar and storage. If necessary slightly tweak stamp duty to recoup the extra cost directly.
Comments
Art of the deal, Donald, art of the deal....
I've never had a problem in getting a GP appointment (or dentist for that matter) and nor has anyone I know.
While according to the official bodies there are over 350m GP appointments per year with this number having increased in recent years.
So an average of five GP appointments per person per year.
Considering that many people never or rarely need to go to their doctor it would suggest others have season tickets to theirs.
Two points.
1) As I read Mr RP's post I wondered how many people actually self-describe as 'bureaucrats'? Everyone complains about 'bureaucracy' but no-one says that his or her job is unnecessary!
2) Reading the posts about self-driving cars, I've just been officially told that, due to my infirmity I'm unfit to drive. If I find a self-driving car, could I get my licence back, and drive again?
Labour could head this off, but they're myopic and unable to see the big picture.
But I disagree on Trump. Sadly, I'm not sure that Trump/Putin/Ukraine will be very salient by the time we get to the election. Will there still be a war on? Will Ukraine have been subjugated? I suspect not, even if Trump imposes a bad peace. People will move on. And they won't draw any conclusions about Trumpian economics either.
Two contradictory positions are true:
There are more GP appointments being made available
There are is a shortage of GPs, especially in localised pockets
Because the NHSes are shit sandwiches, there is both more appointments available in each nation and a catastrophic inability to see *my* GP at *my* practice. And because most people see a GP infrequently, they don't have the lived experience to disprove the narrative that you can't see a GP.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-attracts-largest-following-across-social-media-platforms-13148421
Striking is the presence of Labour and Reform on TikTok, with the rest pretty well nowhere.
Any thoughts ?
Ultimately yes - if the majority of people feel better off and that things are improving, then I cannot see a path for Labour not getting a second term. Whether people like or dislike Starmer, he is not an absolute shit and dilettante chancer like Johnson, nor is he a vacuous waste of space like Truss. He feels more like May, but May with a massive majority and a brilliant excuse (its the 14 years of Tory mis-managment that caused this).
Boots on the ground could become facts on the ground.
As Trump disengages from Europe, things might develop otherwise than he expects.
Well Labour were happy to peddle 'Broken Britain' bollox in opposition so they will now have to deal with it in government.
- QALY. Victims of road collisions tend to be younger, in employment, fitter than the general population. Your cycle commuter, for example, tends to be a high-earner in their 20s/30s, so the comparison to COVID lockdowns is a little lazy.
- There is a significant economic cost associated with collisions, whether from the emergency services (£2 million per fatality), insurance costs (70% of your premium, or about £8 billion a year), lost earnings from those injured and so on.
OTOH, you have the economic cost of people and goods not being able to get around quite as fast. In total, that's a significant cost. Getting the optimal balance is tricky.
In urban areas, you can look at the "market speed limit" for private roads, such as in holiday parks, shipyards, military bases etc etc. On average they tend to be a lot slower, which suggests that current limits are higher than the optimal urban speed.
With very little work, that post would provide a decent one.
More to do with the psychology (and possibly Musk's evidently blase attitude towards other folk's safety) than the actual odds.
This is why the system is fundamentally broken and needs significant reform. The patient interface is set at a local level and for so many people its desperately poor, regardless of the national statistics that politicians sneeringly recite.
Don't think I've 'seen' a GP in three years, but had many interactions at the surgery.
There are many issues. If you know what you need and how best to access it the system works ok. My run of infant caused chest infections last year was dealt with pretty well. But if you are not so clued up it can be an immense frustration.
I also fully understand why many people do not like triage by receptionist. In reality they are working like the 111 service, sorting out the best place for you to go, but in pisses people off that they have to explain what can be intimate issues to Babs on the desk, rather than a clinician.
https://x.com/WorldAndScience/status/1894224323138736553
(Though imo he's a little mild about the way he did it.)
https://youtu.be/_JTLV6uEdNo?t=85
OUCH! The Bundesbank reports a €19.2 billion loss for 2024—the first loss since 1979 and the largest in its history.
https://x.com/Worldviewnews11/status/1894298082008858800
So Kemi Kingmaker between Farage and Starmer
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=22&LAB=24&LIB=16&Reform=25&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
My GP receptionist, for example, might offer me a nurse appt, say she can do it offline (eg reauthorise a prescription which I can then request online), suggest a Dr callback, or an appointment, an evening appointment, or a weekend appointment, an kept-clear emergency appointment if I got pushed out in the 8:30am phone rush, ask me to call 111, go to a MIU, or - in extremis - 999 or go to A&E.
I don't know if they have scripts as they do in Emergency Call Centres (I once dodged a bullet by turning down a contract to develop a database for one of those centres using MS Access).
But when you tell people to do 20 instead of 30 in a city with a mean speed of 19mph they go beserk, because people hate being told what to do if it’s different from what they’re used to. Such is the business of politics.
(Mean velocity across Greater London in 2019 was 19mph, 12mph in inner London: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/average-traffic-speeds-1 )
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewk5xlxwkro
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl0k772lwpo
Police will be able to search homes for stolen phones without a warrant and a 2014 law making shoplifting of items worth under £200 less serious than retail theft for police will be scrapped under the new proposed Crime and Policing Bill
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5269qn5jvo
One starts to wonder what a GP will actually do in a few years...
Mind, some years ago ours wasn't so good, either.
We did it for drunk driving - though there has been backsliding in some measure since 2010, and a lack of will for further progression since (estd) 2000.
And we can do it for distracted driving and speeding, too.
Self driving won’t affect the mean speed of traffic in urban areas because it’s ultimately limited by junction capacity & congestion levels.
We used to do public information films. Despite having brilliant social media able to reach millions quickly we've decided not to bother. TikTok advocating Vabbing (NSFW, don't look it up) rather than drive slower to get there quicker.
Can’t be seen to have your policy proposals coming from some no-name annoyance of an academic who doesn’t even study the field in question after all.
It's not a simple subject, as there would be short term problems (what would happen to the contract basis for new wind developments, for example), but the existing system is undeniably perverse, in several respects.
It seems like total madness - I need to buy 10 pounds of potatoes. I buy nine pounds from Aldi @ 10p, but that's all they have. So I go to Waitrose and buy the final pound at £1. I don't then go back to Aldi and gift them an extra £8
eg In Berwick (or say Shetland), the balance between solar panels and extra insulation may be different from Cornwall.
So you don't mandate "do THIS", you mandate "be THIS efficient" - and the developer gets to choose the cost-effective way to do it.
IMO with solar panels we are probably at the point where it should be "solar panels unless there is an exceptional reason" (such as the sun is substantially blocked) - eg row of trees with TPOs, block of flats, big factory, mountain.
And North Chelmsford is even bigger.
A good friend is a GS13 and a chief engineer in charge of multiple navy programs. He was straight up told: “you’re going to get fire next week so I’ve made arrangements to have you brought back on as a contractor, congrats on the raise.”
https://x.com/Fligherferhire/status/1893863409839464863
We've seen much the same in the UK.
Edit: Basically it makes no economic sense for the cheaper suppliers to greatly undercut the expensive suppliers if demand is relatively rigid and the cheaper suppliers are unable to meet that demand. That, I think, is what is meant by price being set at the margin. (But I'm not an economist.)
It gives me an excuse to use that Farage photo.
If I was feeling conspiratorial, I'd suggest much of the opposition to renewables comes from people who want our economy to be as exposed to Russia's machinations as possible.
Telling people it takes months to renew a passport when it takes a week is bollox.
All it results in is people thinking the country is in a lot worse shape than it is which in turn feeds through to support for the political extremes.
Yes, some people have some problems - so governments should concentrate on resolving them instead of bewailing and doomcasting.
Sadly.
Scotland has 16GW of renewables, already exports energy, and has additional 57GW under construction or in planning. The big question is wtf are we going to do with it all.
It is, apparently, a response to remote tracking and the many people who tell PC Plod that their phone/bike/parcel/etc is pinned down by a tracker app in building X or garage Y and can't understand why Plod DGAF.
Our local practise merged with another. Now it’s appointment only by filling in a multi page online form. During business hours. Yes, they disable it before 8:30am and after 5pm.
Not sure what people who find multi-page web forms difficult, are supposed to do…
About 50% of the time they fail to follow up.
They got very snotty at a community meeting, when all the questions were hostile. Wrong kind of patients, apparently.
But write to your MP. I think nodal/regional pricing and smart tariffs that track the hourly spot price of electricity are the way in which households could benefit in the medium-term.
*phones are one thing - if it extends to air tags etc then there could be all kinds of fun with thieves detaching and lobbing tags through the nearest open window. Hopefully drafted tightly enough to counter that.
And voila, here it is:
Tiefreinigungsnachgenussfreude
With the exception of Octopus:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-could-introduce-zonal-energy-114244840.html
As the link suggests, Labour might be looking at it.
And the review has been going on since the latter days of the last government;
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-electricity-market-arrangements-rema-second-consultation
However, thanks to Lansley local management is now in the hands of GP's and they do tend to rally round each other when criticised.