Guardian says Reform are about to announce a public lottery funded by them where the winner gets free energy for a year.
Is this treating?
Greens should counter with a lottery where the winner gets comprehensive solar plus battery - free energy for life*
*yes, I know - winter etc, though I imagine with a decent amount of storage it might be possible to get to 'net zero' for energy costs, by buying extra when cheap and selling excess when expensive. Ignoring the set-up costs, of course, but those would be covered by the prize
They tried that with Dominos pizzas in Russia in 2018 (100 per annum) and then tried to withdraw the prize in 2023.
Entirely boring story. It would only be exciting if Bansksy turned out to be someone who the public already knew, such as Thora Heard, or Nigel Farage...
I found it interesting because I'd always suspected he'd be from that type of background.
I'm in a minority here (as usual) - I think Starmer is doing reasonably well - but the problem is the contempt is so embedded among some it will always come out as opposition. Even when Starmer gets it right, plenty will say he's getting it wrong and that's probably going to be the case to the minute he leaves 10 Downing Street and some will be still having a go as his car reaches the Palace.
Clipped for reply.... Ive never liked him and i know im a bit of a waspish wasp, however to explain where i think the contempt comes from.... There is zero accountability with him. Nothing ever crosses his desk, nothing is his fault. Or, worse, he says 'i take responsibility' (mandy appointment) and then has his CoS removed and says the "process' wasnt robust enough. Then follow a more robust one! If theres a rickety bridge over a gorge with no handrail you dont just assume its safe because 'thats the process for crossing' Nothing crosses his desk, everything is a chance to talk about his alleged hardships, everybody else pays and process trumps all, even results. His inability to deal with problems because he has to follow process will be his epitaph. He will walk to his own political demise because there was a signpost telling him he must
I simply don't share that view.
I have been disappointed inasmuch as, like Blair, he had a real mandate for change (you can whinge and call it a "loveless landslide" if you like but in this country elections are won by seats not votes - if, under a PR system, he'd ended up with 250 seats in the Commons, it would have been different).
Yet I was under no illusions "change" meant anything - he had no ideological programme for radical change - in truth, the centre left is as bankrupt as the centre right and has been since 2008 in terms of a practical growth-inspiring economic policy (to be fair, the populists have no answers either even though they claim they do).
MY hope was he and his administration would manage the quasi-social democratic post-Thatcherite concensus better than the Conservatives who in 14 years of leading the Government achieved little or nothing and whose antics in 2020 have destroyed the public finances as effectively as Brown did in the run up to 2008.
How accountable is any Prime Minister in truth - to Cabinet, to Parliament, ultimately only to the electorate? When you have a huge majority of MPs beholden to you, you have serious power.
I don't think "process" as you and @Malmesbury term it, began on July 5th 2024. I'm not exactly sure what your problem with "process" is apart from it takes longer to do things. If you have unregulated and uncontrolled activity you end up with situations like the Eastgate building near Woking Station:
The problem comes when Process becomes the end, and not the means.
The classic put-down, these days is that “no process = chaos”. Yes it does. But excessive love of process above outcomes leads to chaos as well.
Grenfell burnt down with metric tons of docs proving it was environmentally friendly, planned well, rebuilt brilliantly. Oh, and was completely tip top on the fire angle. But “The Forms Were Obeyed”
Starmer’s problem is that he seems to exist as an implementer of process. His job, according the U.K. constitution is to re-write process, where required.
Watching as parts of the house building sector stall, during a housing crisis, is a negative.
See the recent decisions on the nuclear power station planning regieme for a positive.
Edit: on the building you linked to. The documentation for the build was tip top as well. The problem with the concrete is a widespread issue. Buildings are being found with inadequate structure all the time. Because testing samples of the concrete during construction didn’t happen. Instead we have rooms full of paper saying it’s all great.
But just saying the problem with Grenfell was too much process seems simplistic, a grand narrative in search of an example. It's the details that matter. What particular circumstances led those involved to miss the dangers?
The obsession, in the building industry (as with other areas) is regulation without enforcement.
When you create a regulation, it isn’t free. You are trying to spend other people’s money.
Without enforcement, the bad drives out good.
Even with large, supposedly reputable firms. In the case of the big builders, they subcontract everything. Which in turn is subcontracted. So they have little or no legal liability - “the contract said enforce all laws and regulations”. At the same time, the cheapest contractor gets the bid.
So we have brand new houses with inadequate foundations and missing insulation. Or apartment blocks with concrete that starts to fail before people move in.
Because there is little or no enforcement, the mass of documents serves to make it look superficially ok. Any enquiry is met with - “read this room full of paper”.
Too much of the *wrong* process is not merely valueless. It create a hiding place - just like complex tax laws.
Many people trying to get justice for such failed building work find that they are priced out of the courts, by the cost getting lawyers to read a mountain of garbage.
Kemi Badenoch says Donald Trump's 'childish' attacks on Keir Starmer have been 'quite shocking'. Says she is the PM's 'biggest critic' but adds: 'The last thing we need is a war of words - it's quite childish as well - between the White House and Downing Street.'
Guardian says Reform are about to announce a public lottery funded by them where the winner gets free energy for a year.
Is this treating?
Greens should counter with a lottery where the winner gets comprehensive solar plus battery - free energy for life*
*yes, I know - winter etc, though I imagine with a decent amount of storage it might be possible to get to 'net zero' for energy costs, by buying extra when cheap and selling excess when expensive. Ignoring the set-up costs, of course, but those would be covered by the prize
I already do get pretty much Net Zero for energy cost - subject to certain fluctuations, in an entirely normal house.
Surely others do too? It's not exactly a demanding target any more since perhaps a decade ago.
I think the first one I noticed was probably the Eco Arch in Kent from Grand Designs 2009 series, who reported a FIT income of several K per annum back in 2009.
It became more difficult when Cameron whacked the Feed in Tariff, having as per usual sat on his arse and neglected to maintain it at a reducing level to control costs and broaden installations. So it became a profit-centre not an incentive, and he whacked it by 2/3.
The idea came back as practical without extreme measures (eg grow all your own wood for the boiler) when higher payments became available for exported electricity units.
House batteries have made it much easier, as has increasing solar efficiency and reducingt cost.
I'm in a minority here (as usual) - I think Starmer is doing reasonably well - but the problem is the contempt is so embedded among some it will always come out as opposition. Even when Starmer gets it right, plenty will say he's getting it wrong and that's probably going to be the case to the minute he leaves 10 Downing Street and some will be still having a go as his car reaches the Palace.
Clipped for reply.... Ive never liked him and i know im a bit of a waspish wasp, however to explain where i think the contempt comes from.... There is zero accountability with him. Nothing ever crosses his desk, nothing is his fault. Or, worse, he says 'i take responsibility' (mandy appointment) and then has his CoS removed and says the "process' wasnt robust enough. Then follow a more robust one! If theres a rickety bridge over a gorge with no handrail you dont just assume its safe because 'thats the process for crossing' Nothing crosses his desk, everything is a chance to talk about his alleged hardships, everybody else pays and process trumps all, even results. His inability to deal with problems because he has to follow process will be his epitaph. He will walk to his own political demise because there was a signpost telling him he must
I simply don't share that view.
I have been disappointed inasmuch as, like Blair, he had a real mandate for change (you can whinge and call it a "loveless landslide" if you like but in this country elections are won by seats not votes - if, under a PR system, he'd ended up with 250 seats in the Commons, it would have been different).
Yet I was under no illusions "change" meant anything - he had no ideological programme for radical change - in truth, the centre left is as bankrupt as the centre right and has been since 2008 in terms of a practical growth-inspiring economic policy (to be fair, the populists have no answers either even though they claim they do).
MY hope was he and his administration would manage the quasi-social democratic post-Thatcherite concensus better than the Conservatives who in 14 years of leading the Government achieved little or nothing and whose antics in 2020 have destroyed the public finances as effectively as Brown did in the run up to 2008.
How accountable is any Prime Minister in truth - to Cabinet, to Parliament, ultimately only to the electorate? When you have a huge majority of MPs beholden to you, you have serious power.
I don't think "process" as you and @Malmesbury term it, began on July 5th 2024. I'm not exactly sure what your problem with "process" is apart from it takes longer to do things. If you have unregulated and uncontrolled activity you end up with situations like the Eastgate building near Woking Station:
The problem comes when Process becomes the end, and not the means.
The classic put-down, these days is that “no process = chaos”. Yes it does. But excessive love of process above outcomes leads to chaos as well.
Grenfell burnt down with metric tons of docs proving it was environmentally friendly, planned well, rebuilt brilliantly. Oh, and was completely tip top on the fire angle. But “The Forms Were Obeyed”
Starmer’s problem is that he seems to exist as an implementer of process. His job, according the U.K. constitution is to re-write process, where required.
Watching as parts of the house building sector stall, during a housing crisis, is a negative.
See the recent decisions on the nuclear power station planning regieme for a positive.
Edit: on the building you linked to. The documentation for the build was tip top as well. The problem with the concrete is a widespread issue. Buildings are being found with inadequate structure all the time. Because testing samples of the concrete during construction didn’t happen. Instead we have rooms full of paper saying it’s all great.
But just saying the problem with Grenfell was too much process seems simplistic, a grand narrative in search of an example. It's the details that matter. What particular circumstances led those involved to miss the dangers?
The obsession, in the building industry (as with other areas) is regulation without enforcement.
When you create a regulation, it isn’t free. You are trying to spend other people’s money.
Without enforcement, the bad drives out good.
Even with large, supposedly reputable firms. In the case of the big builders, they subcontract everything. Which in turn is subcontracted. So they have little or no legal liability - “the contract said enforce all laws and regulations”. At the same time, the cheapest contractor gets the bid.
So we have brand new houses with inadequate foundations and missing insulation. Or apartment blocks with concrete that starts to fail before people move in.
Because there is little or no enforcement, the mass of documents serves to make it look superficially ok. Any enquiry is met with - “read this room full of paper”.
Too much of the *wrong* process is not merely valueless. It create a hiding place - just like complex tax laws.
Many people trying to get justice for such failed building work find that they are priced out of the courts, by the cost getting lawyers to read a mountain of garbage.
So, that seems like a good argument for...
a) More enforcement
b) Less subcontracting as a mechanism to avoid responsbility
I'm in a minority here (as usual) - I think Starmer is doing reasonably well - but the problem is the contempt is so embedded among some it will always come out as opposition. Even when Starmer gets it right, plenty will say he's getting it wrong and that's probably going to be the case to the minute he leaves 10 Downing Street and some will be still having a go as his car reaches the Palace.
Clipped for reply.... Ive never liked him and i know im a bit of a waspish wasp, however to explain where i think the contempt comes from.... There is zero accountability with him. Nothing ever crosses his desk, nothing is his fault. Or, worse, he says 'i take responsibility' (mandy appointment) and then has his CoS removed and says the "process' wasnt robust enough. Then follow a more robust one! If theres a rickety bridge over a gorge with no handrail you dont just assume its safe because 'thats the process for crossing' Nothing crosses his desk, everything is a chance to talk about his alleged hardships, everybody else pays and process trumps all, even results. His inability to deal with problems because he has to follow process will be his epitaph. He will walk to his own political demise because there was a signpost telling him he must
I simply don't share that view.
I have been disappointed inasmuch as, like Blair, he had a real mandate for change (you can whinge and call it a "loveless landslide" if you like but in this country elections are won by seats not votes - if, under a PR system, he'd ended up with 250 seats in the Commons, it would have been different).
Yet I was under no illusions "change" meant anything - he had no ideological programme for radical change - in truth, the centre left is as bankrupt as the centre right and has been since 2008 in terms of a practical growth-inspiring economic policy (to be fair, the populists have no answers either even though they claim they do).
MY hope was he and his administration would manage the quasi-social democratic post-Thatcherite concensus better than the Conservatives who in 14 years of leading the Government achieved little or nothing and whose antics in 2020 have destroyed the public finances as effectively as Brown did in the run up to 2008.
How accountable is any Prime Minister in truth - to Cabinet, to Parliament, ultimately only to the electorate? When you have a huge majority of MPs beholden to you, you have serious power.
I don't think "process" as you and @Malmesbury term it, began on July 5th 2024. I'm not exactly sure what your problem with "process" is apart from it takes longer to do things. If you have unregulated and uncontrolled activity you end up with situations like the Eastgate building near Woking Station:
The problem comes when Process becomes the end, and not the means.
The classic put-down, these days is that “no process = chaos”. Yes it does. But excessive love of process above outcomes leads to chaos as well.
Grenfell burnt down with metric tons of docs proving it was environmentally friendly, planned well, rebuilt brilliantly. Oh, and was completely tip top on the fire angle. But “The Forms Were Obeyed”
Starmer’s problem is that he seems to exist as an implementer of process. His job, according the U.K. constitution is to re-write process, where required.
Watching as parts of the house building sector stall, during a housing crisis, is a negative.
See the recent decisions on the nuclear power station planning regieme for a positive.
Edit: on the building you linked to. The documentation for the build was tip top as well. The problem with the concrete is a widespread issue. Buildings are being found with inadequate structure all the time. Because testing samples of the concrete during construction didn’t happen. Instead we have rooms full of paper saying it’s all great.
The Grenfell fire is not an argument for getting rid of a regulatory process, it is an argument for proper enforcement and verification of the regulatory process. The documentation of the construction and materials used did not reflect the reality of the work and the material testing.
Bingo. Paperwork without enforcement is just performative. If I can file a 500 page document proving firelighters aren’t inflammable, what’s the point?
The argument I am making is for reducing process to the required purpose. The ends, not the means. We have vast amounts of regulation in the building industry, yet quality is getting worse. There’s a reason many people won’t touch new built.
You need to think in terms of desired outcomes and how to *enforce* them.
I'm in a minority here (as usual) - I think Starmer is doing reasonably well - but the problem is the contempt is so embedded among some it will always come out as opposition. Even when Starmer gets it right, plenty will say he's getting it wrong and that's probably going to be the case to the minute he leaves 10 Downing Street and some will be still having a go as his car reaches the Palace.
Clipped for reply.... Ive never liked him and i know im a bit of a waspish wasp, however to explain where i think the contempt comes from.... There is zero accountability with him. Nothing ever crosses his desk, nothing is his fault. Or, worse, he says 'i take responsibility' (mandy appointment) and then has his CoS removed and says the "process' wasnt robust enough. Then follow a more robust one! If theres a rickety bridge over a gorge with no handrail you dont just assume its safe because 'thats the process for crossing' Nothing crosses his desk, everything is a chance to talk about his alleged hardships, everybody else pays and process trumps all, even results. His inability to deal with problems because he has to follow process will be his epitaph. He will walk to his own political demise because there was a signpost telling him he must
...
Yet I was under no illusions "change" meant anything - he had no ideological programme for radical change - in truth, the centre left is as bankrupt as the centre right and has been since 2008 in terms of a practical growth-inspiring economic policy (to be fair, the populists have no answers either even though they claim they do).
There's one policy which does lead to increased investment, increased housing and increased subsequent economic activity.
Road building.
Its also something this country has done little of since 2000.
Take a look though at the places where new roads have been built and you see alongside the new roads new housing, new business parks, new industrial estates, new leisure facilities.,
I'm in a minority here (as usual) - I think Starmer is doing reasonably well - but the problem is the contempt is so embedded among some it will always come out as opposition. Even when Starmer gets it right, plenty will say he's getting it wrong and that's probably going to be the case to the minute he leaves 10 Downing Street and some will be still having a go as his car reaches the Palace.
Clipped for reply.... Ive never liked him and i know im a bit of a waspish wasp, however to explain where i think the contempt comes from.... There is zero accountability with him. Nothing ever crosses his desk, nothing is his fault. Or, worse, he says 'i take responsibility' (mandy appointment) and then has his CoS removed and says the "process' wasnt robust enough. Then follow a more robust one! If theres a rickety bridge over a gorge with no handrail you dont just assume its safe because 'thats the process for crossing' Nothing crosses his desk, everything is a chance to talk about his alleged hardships, everybody else pays and process trumps all, even results. His inability to deal with problems because he has to follow process will be his epitaph. He will walk to his own political demise because there was a signpost telling him he must
I simply don't share that view.
I have been disappointed inasmuch as, like Blair, he had a real mandate for change (you can whinge and call it a "loveless landslide" if you like but in this country elections are won by seats not votes - if, under a PR system, he'd ended up with 250 seats in the Commons, it would have been different).
Yet I was under no illusions "change" meant anything - he had no ideological programme for radical change - in truth, the centre left is as bankrupt as the centre right and has been since 2008 in terms of a practical growth-inspiring economic policy (to be fair, the populists have no answers either even though they claim they do).
MY hope was he and his administration would manage the quasi-social democratic post-Thatcherite concensus better than the Conservatives who in 14 years of leading the Government achieved little or nothing and whose antics in 2020 have destroyed the public finances as effectively as Brown did in the run up to 2008.
How accountable is any Prime Minister in truth - to Cabinet, to Parliament, ultimately only to the electorate? When you have a huge majority of MPs beholden to you, you have serious power.
I don't think "process" as you and @Malmesbury term it, began on July 5th 2024. I'm not exactly sure what your problem with "process" is apart from it takes longer to do things. If you have unregulated and uncontrolled activity you end up with situations like the Eastgate building near Woking Station:
The problem comes when Process becomes the end, and not the means.
The classic put-down, these days is that “no process = chaos”. Yes it does. But excessive love of process above outcomes leads to chaos as well.
Grenfell burnt down with metric tons of docs proving it was environmentally friendly, planned well, rebuilt brilliantly. Oh, and was completely tip top on the fire angle. But “The Forms Were Obeyed”
Starmer’s problem is that he seems to exist as an implementer of process. His job, according the U.K. constitution is to re-write process, where required.
Watching as parts of the house building sector stall, during a housing crisis, is a negative.
See the recent decisions on the nuclear power station planning regieme for a positive.
Edit: on the building you linked to. The documentation for the build was tip top as well. The problem with the concrete is a widespread issue. Buildings are being found with inadequate structure all the time. Because testing samples of the concrete during construction didn’t happen. Instead we have rooms full of paper saying it’s all great.
But just saying the problem with Grenfell was too much process seems simplistic, a grand narrative in search of an example. It's the details that matter. What particular circumstances led those involved to miss the dangers?
The obsession, in the building industry (as with other areas) is regulation without enforcement.
When you create a regulation, it isn’t free. You are trying to spend other people’s money.
Without enforcement, the bad drives out good.
Even with large, supposedly reputable firms. In the case of the big builders, they subcontract everything. Which in turn is subcontracted. So they have little or no legal liability - “the contract said enforce all laws and regulations”. At the same time, the cheapest contractor gets the bid.
So we have brand new houses with inadequate foundations and missing insulation. Or apartment blocks with concrete that starts to fail before people move in.
Because there is little or no enforcement, the mass of documents serves to make it look superficially ok. Any enquiry is met with - “read this room full of paper”.
Too much of the *wrong* process is not merely valueless. It create a hiding place - just like complex tax laws.
Many people trying to get justice for such failed building work find that they are priced out of the courts, by the cost getting lawyers to read a mountain of garbage.
So, that seems like a good argument for...
a) More enforcement
b) Less subcontracting as a mechanism to avoid responsbility
Rather than an argument for less process.
The process is part of the problem - it imposes huge costs, which provide the motivation to evade it.
Much of it doesn’t add value in any way, shape or form.
For example, for a domestic loft project, your builder should create a whole document on mitigating the issue of people tripping/slipping on site. Many don’t bother - and break the regulations. No one reads them, anyway. Certainly not the actual workers
The actual answer is “a tidy workplace”. If your builder brings in the Henrys with the kettle*, then he’s probably going to do it right.
I'm in a minority here (as usual) - I think Starmer is doing reasonably well - but the problem is the contempt is so embedded among some it will always come out as opposition. Even when Starmer gets it right, plenty will say he's getting it wrong and that's probably going to be the case to the minute he leaves 10 Downing Street and some will be still having a go as his car reaches the Palace.
Clipped for reply.... Ive never liked him and i know im a bit of a waspish wasp, however to explain where i think the contempt comes from.... There is zero accountability with him. Nothing ever crosses his desk, nothing is his fault. Or, worse, he says 'i take responsibility' (mandy appointment) and then has his CoS removed and says the "process' wasnt robust enough. Then follow a more robust one! If theres a rickety bridge over a gorge with no handrail you dont just assume its safe because 'thats the process for crossing' Nothing crosses his desk, everything is a chance to talk about his alleged hardships, everybody else pays and process trumps all, even results. His inability to deal with problems because he has to follow process will be his epitaph. He will walk to his own political demise because there was a signpost telling him he must
I simply don't share that view.
I have been disappointed inasmuch as, like Blair, he had a real mandate for change (you can whinge and call it a "loveless landslide" if you like but in this country elections are won by seats not votes - if, under a PR system, he'd ended up with 250 seats in the Commons, it would have been different).
Yet I was under no illusions "change" meant anything - he had no ideological programme for radical change - in truth, the centre left is as bankrupt as the centre right and has been since 2008 in terms of a practical growth-inspiring economic policy (to be fair, the populists have no answers either even though they claim they do).
MY hope was he and his administration would manage the quasi-social democratic post-Thatcherite concensus better than the Conservatives who in 14 years of leading the Government achieved little or nothing and whose antics in 2020 have destroyed the public finances as effectively as Brown did in the run up to 2008.
How accountable is any Prime Minister in truth - to Cabinet, to Parliament, ultimately only to the electorate? When you have a huge majority of MPs beholden to you, you have serious power.
I don't think "process" as you and @Malmesbury term it, began on July 5th 2024. I'm not exactly sure what your problem with "process" is apart from it takes longer to do things. If you have unregulated and uncontrolled activity you end up with situations like the Eastgate building near Woking Station:
The problem comes when Process becomes the end, and not the means.
The classic put-down, these days is that “no process = chaos”. Yes it does. But excessive love of process above outcomes leads to chaos as well.
Grenfell burnt down with metric tons of docs proving it was environmentally friendly, planned well, rebuilt brilliantly. Oh, and was completely tip top on the fire angle. But “The Forms Were Obeyed”
Starmer’s problem is that he seems to exist as an implementer of process. His job, according the U.K. constitution is to re-write process, where required.
Watching as parts of the house building sector stall, during a housing crisis, is a negative.
See the recent decisions on the nuclear power station planning regieme for a positive.
Edit: on the building you linked to. The documentation for the build was tip top as well. The problem with the concrete is a widespread issue. Buildings are being found with inadequate structure all the time. Because testing samples of the concrete during construction didn’t happen. Instead we have rooms full of paper saying it’s all great.
But just saying the problem with Grenfell was too much process seems simplistic, a grand narrative in search of an example. It's the details that matter. What particular circumstances led those involved to miss the dangers?
The obsession, in the building industry (as with other areas) is regulation without enforcement.
When you create a regulation, it isn’t free. You are trying to spend other people’s money.
Without enforcement, the bad drives out good.
Even with large, supposedly reputable firms. In the case of the big builders, they subcontract everything. Which in turn is subcontracted. So they have little or no legal liability - “the contract said enforce all laws and regulations”. At the same time, the cheapest contractor gets the bid.
So we have brand new houses with inadequate foundations and missing insulation. Or apartment blocks with concrete that starts to fail before people move in.
Because there is little or no enforcement, the mass of documents serves to make it look superficially ok. Any enquiry is met with - “read this room full of paper”.
Too much of the *wrong* process is not merely valueless. It create a hiding place - just like complex tax laws.
Many people trying to get justice for such failed building work find that they are priced out of the courts, by the cost getting lawyers to read a mountain of garbage.
So, that seems like a good argument for...
a) More enforcement
b) Less subcontracting as a mechanism to avoid responsbility
Rather than an argument for less process.
What I find notable is that if the original design of the building hadn't been changed the disaster couldn't have happened because concrete isn't flammable.
Kemi Badenoch says Donald Trump's 'childish' attacks on Keir Starmer have been 'quite shocking'. Says she is the PM's 'biggest critic' but adds: 'The last thing we need is a war of words - it's quite childish as well - between the White House and Downing Street.'
I told you if we woke mum up we would get in trouble
Kemi Badenoch says Donald Trump's 'childish' attacks on Keir Starmer have been 'quite shocking'. Says she is the PM's 'biggest critic' but adds: 'The last thing we need is a war of words - it's quite childish as well - between the White House and Downing Street.'
I told you if we woke mum up we would get in trouble
Kemi Badenoch says Donald Trump's 'childish' attacks on Keir Starmer have been 'quite shocking'. Says she is the PM's 'biggest critic' but adds: 'The last thing we need is a war of words - it's quite childish as well - between the White House and Downing Street.'
I told you if we woke mum up we would get in trouble
That's a twitter parody account I assume?
No, i think Kemi really has gone for the 'knock it off' approach
Entirely boring story. It would only be exciting if Bansksy turned out to be someone who the public already knew, such as Thora Heard, or Nigel Farage...
If he was Thora Hird theres been some serious progress in deceased art, lol
Amusing to imagine who would be the least likely living person to be Banksy?
Starmer comes to mind. Nipping out from No 10 in the dead of night.
This is why of course there is never any new Banksy artwork completed over a Friday night.
Guardian says Reform are about to announce a public lottery funded by them where the winner gets free energy for a year.
Is this treating?
Reported elsewhere, apparently Electoral Commission are unable to monitor political donations made in crypto currency as they're unable to compel parties to give them the wallet details.
In which case, donations in crypto should be banned- Musk doesn't get to buy our politics.
On the face of it the judge should dismiss the case . Other Trump appointees have gone against him although as we saw from Cannons disgraceful conduct it’s possible the judge could be a cult member .
Equally disgraceful is the behaviour of the right wing press here who would rejoice if Trump won this case .
Entirely boring story. It would only be exciting if Bansksy turned out to be someone who the public already knew, such as Thora Heard, or Nigel Farage...
If he was Thora Hird theres been some serious progress in deceased art, lol
Amusing to imagine who would be the least likely living person to be Banksy?
Starmer comes to mind. Nipping out from No 10 in the dead of night.
This is why of course there is never any new Banksy artwork completed over a Friday night.
Its Dido Harding. Obvs
Wouldn't the artworks be only half finished?
You make a good point. She is assisted by sous-street artist Joey Essex
I'm in a minority here (as usual) - I think Starmer is doing reasonably well - but the problem is the contempt is so embedded among some it will always come out as opposition. Even when Starmer gets it right, plenty will say he's getting it wrong and that's probably going to be the case to the minute he leaves 10 Downing Street and some will be still having a go as his car reaches the Palace.
Clipped for reply.... Ive never liked him and i know im a bit of a waspish wasp, however to explain where i think the contempt comes from.... There is zero accountability with him. Nothing ever crosses his desk, nothing is his fault. Or, worse, he says 'i take responsibility' (mandy appointment) and then has his CoS removed and says the "process' wasnt robust enough. Then follow a more robust one! If theres a rickety bridge over a gorge with no handrail you dont just assume its safe because 'thats the process for crossing' Nothing crosses his desk, everything is a chance to talk about his alleged hardships, everybody else pays and process trumps all, even results. His inability to deal with problems because he has to follow process will be his epitaph. He will walk to his own political demise because there was a signpost telling him he must
I simply don't share that view.
I have been disappointed inasmuch as, like Blair, he had a real mandate for change (you can whinge and call it a "loveless landslide" if you like but in this country elections are won by seats not votes - if, under a PR system, he'd ended up with 250 seats in the Commons, it would have been different).
Yet I was under no illusions "change" meant anything - he had no ideological programme for radical change - in truth, the centre left is as bankrupt as the centre right and has been since 2008 in terms of a practical growth-inspiring economic policy (to be fair, the populists have no answers either even though they claim they do).
MY hope was he and his administration would manage the quasi-social democratic post-Thatcherite concensus better than the Conservatives who in 14 years of leading the Government achieved little or nothing and whose antics in 2020 have destroyed the public finances as effectively as Brown did in the run up to 2008.
How accountable is any Prime Minister in truth - to Cabinet, to Parliament, ultimately only to the electorate? When you have a huge majority of MPs beholden to you, you have serious power.
I don't think "process" as you and @Malmesbury term it, began on July 5th 2024. I'm not exactly sure what your problem with "process" is apart from it takes longer to do things. If you have unregulated and uncontrolled activity you end up with situations like the Eastgate building near Woking Station:
The problem comes when Process becomes the end, and not the means.
The classic put-down, these days is that “no process = chaos”. Yes it does. But excessive love of process above outcomes leads to chaos as well.
Grenfell burnt down with metric tons of docs proving it was environmentally friendly, planned well, rebuilt brilliantly. Oh, and was completely tip top on the fire angle. But “The Forms Were Obeyed”
Starmer’s problem is that he seems to exist as an implementer of process. His job, according the U.K. constitution is to re-write process, where required.
Watching as parts of the house building sector stall, during a housing crisis, is a negative.
See the recent decisions on the nuclear power station planning regieme for a positive.
Edit: on the building you linked to. The documentation for the build was tip top as well. The problem with the concrete is a widespread issue. Buildings are being found with inadequate structure all the time. Because testing samples of the concrete during construction didn’t happen. Instead we have rooms full of paper saying it’s all great.
But just saying the problem with Grenfell was too much process seems simplistic, a grand narrative in search of an example. It's the details that matter. What particular circumstances led those involved to miss the dangers?
The obsession, in the building industry (as with other areas) is regulation without enforcement.
When you create a regulation, it isn’t free. You are trying to spend other people’s money.
Without enforcement, the bad drives out good.
Even with large, supposedly reputable firms. In the case of the big builders, they subcontract everything. Which in turn is subcontracted. So they have little or no legal liability - “the contract said enforce all laws and regulations”. At the same time, the cheapest contractor gets the bid.
So we have brand new houses with inadequate foundations and missing insulation. Or apartment blocks with concrete that starts to fail before people move in.
Because there is little or no enforcement, the mass of documents serves to make it look superficially ok. Any enquiry is met with - “read this room full of paper”.
Too much of the *wrong* process is not merely valueless. It create a hiding place - just like complex tax laws.
Many people trying to get justice for such failed building work find that they are priced out of the courts, by the cost getting lawyers to read a mountain of garbage.
So, that seems like a good argument for...
a) More enforcement
b) Less subcontracting as a mechanism to avoid responsbility
Rather than an argument for less process.
What I find notable is that if the original design of the building hadn't been changed the disaster couldn't have happened because concrete isn't flammable.
But the extensive documentation proved that plastic foam can’t burn.
It’s not the builder’s/governments fault that plastic foam can’t read.
"Cash usage rises for fourth year as Brits continue to value money in their pockets
Cash withdrawn from branch ATMs hit £4.2bn in 2025, surpassing 2017 high of £4bn Cash usage rises for fourth year in a row - nearly 35m withdrawals made from Nationwide ATMs(1)"
I'm in a minority here (as usual) - I think Starmer is doing reasonably well - but the problem is the contempt is so embedded among some it will always come out as opposition. Even when Starmer gets it right, plenty will say he's getting it wrong and that's probably going to be the case to the minute he leaves 10 Downing Street and some will be still having a go as his car reaches the Palace.
Clipped for reply.... Ive never liked him and i know im a bit of a waspish wasp, however to explain where i think the contempt comes from.... There is zero accountability with him. Nothing ever crosses his desk, nothing is his fault. Or, worse, he says 'i take responsibility' (mandy appointment) and then has his CoS removed and says the "process' wasnt robust enough. Then follow a more robust one! If theres a rickety bridge over a gorge with no handrail you dont just assume its safe because 'thats the process for crossing' Nothing crosses his desk, everything is a chance to talk about his alleged hardships, everybody else pays and process trumps all, even results. His inability to deal with problems because he has to follow process will be his epitaph. He will walk to his own political demise because there was a signpost telling him he must
I simply don't share that view.
I have been disappointed inasmuch as, like Blair, he had a real mandate for change (you can whinge and call it a "loveless landslide" if you like but in this country elections are won by seats not votes - if, under a PR system, he'd ended up with 250 seats in the Commons, it would have been different).
Yet I was under no illusions "change" meant anything - he had no ideological programme for radical change - in truth, the centre left is as bankrupt as the centre right and has been since 2008 in terms of a practical growth-inspiring economic policy (to be fair, the populists have no answers either even though they claim they do).
MY hope was he and his administration would manage the quasi-social democratic post-Thatcherite concensus better than the Conservatives who in 14 years of leading the Government achieved little or nothing and whose antics in 2020 have destroyed the public finances as effectively as Brown did in the run up to 2008.
How accountable is any Prime Minister in truth - to Cabinet, to Parliament, ultimately only to the electorate? When you have a huge majority of MPs beholden to you, you have serious power.
I don't think "process" as you and @Malmesbury term it, began on July 5th 2024. I'm not exactly sure what your problem with "process" is apart from it takes longer to do things. If you have unregulated and uncontrolled activity you end up with situations like the Eastgate building near Woking Station:
The problem comes when Process becomes the end, and not the means.
The classic put-down, these days is that “no process = chaos”. Yes it does. But excessive love of process above outcomes leads to chaos as well.
Grenfell burnt down with metric tons of docs proving it was environmentally friendly, planned well, rebuilt brilliantly. Oh, and was completely tip top on the fire angle. But “The Forms Were Obeyed”
Starmer’s problem is that he seems to exist as an implementer of process. His job, according the U.K. constitution is to re-write process, where required.
Watching as parts of the house building sector stall, during a housing crisis, is a negative.
See the recent decisions on the nuclear power station planning regieme for a positive.
Edit: on the building you linked to. The documentation for the build was tip top as well. The problem with the concrete is a widespread issue. Buildings are being found with inadequate structure all the time. Because testing samples of the concrete during construction didn’t happen. Instead we have rooms full of paper saying it’s all great.
But just saying the problem with Grenfell was too much process seems simplistic, a grand narrative in search of an example. It's the details that matter. What particular circumstances led those involved to miss the dangers?
The obsession, in the building industry (as with other areas) is regulation without enforcement.
When you create a regulation, it isn’t free. You are trying to spend other people’s money.
Without enforcement, the bad drives out good.
Even with large, supposedly reputable firms. In the case of the big builders, they subcontract everything. Which in turn is subcontracted. So they have little or no legal liability - “the contract said enforce all laws and regulations”. At the same time, the cheapest contractor gets the bid.
So we have brand new houses with inadequate foundations and missing insulation. Or apartment blocks with concrete that starts to fail before people move in.
Because there is little or no enforcement, the mass of documents serves to make it look superficially ok. Any enquiry is met with - “read this room full of paper”.
Too much of the *wrong* process is not merely valueless. It create a hiding place - just like complex tax laws.
Many people trying to get justice for such failed building work find that they are priced out of the courts, by the cost getting lawyers to read a mountain of garbage.
So, that seems like a good argument for...
a) More enforcement
b) Less subcontracting as a mechanism to avoid responsbility
Rather than an argument for less process.
What I find notable is that if the original design of the building hadn't been changed the disaster couldn't have happened because concrete isn't flammable.
But the extensive documentation proved that plastic foam can’t burn.
It’s not the builder’s/governments fault that plastic foam can’t read.
Some of that was (to be determined in court) deliberate fraud.
"Cash usage rises for fourth year as Brits continue to value money in their pockets
Cash withdrawn from branch ATMs hit £4.2bn in 2025, surpassing 2017 high of £4bn Cash usage rises for fourth year in a row - nearly 35m withdrawals made from Nationwide ATMs(1)"
Guardian says Reform are about to announce a public lottery funded by them where the winner gets free energy for a year.
Is this treating?
Reported elsewhere, apparently Electoral Commission are unable to monitor political donations made in crypto currency as they're unable to compel parties to give them the wallet details.
In which case, donations in crypto should be banned- Musk doesn't get to buy our politics.
It’s not just Musk
Incidentally, I be quite surprised if anonymous donation via crypto passes the existing rules on donation.
Pretty sure the Electoral Commission wouldn’t sign off on anonymous donations.
Entirely boring story. It would only be exciting if Bansksy turned out to be someone who the public already knew, such as Thora Heard, or Nigel Farage...
I found it interesting because I'd always suspected he'd be from that type of background.
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Nothing. As long as bunnies can (and will) go to France...
That trial was 47 years ago. Feels both yesterday and ancient history
I was once was at a public meeting about PR somewhere in London back in probably 2006 or 7 or thereabouts.
About half way through a doddery old man stood up in the audience and said he would like to make a point. I forget about what exactly. But he introduced himself as Jeremy Thorpe and a frisson went through the audience.
Is it really him? Is he still alive? Where's he been all these years etc etc.
Unsurprisingly, it was a very eloquently put point.
Out of interest, does anyone know in geberal how many wards in these mass local elections years have only one candidate or one party contesting? ISTR its usually a handful?
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
Guardian says Reform are about to announce a public lottery funded by them where the winner gets free energy for a year.
Is this treating?
Reported elsewhere, apparently Electoral Commission are unable to monitor political donations made in crypto currency as they're unable to compel parties to give them the wallet details.
In which case, donations in crypto should be banned- Musk doesn't get to buy our politics.
It’s not just Musk
Incidentally, I be quite surprised if anonymous donation via crypto passes the existing rules on donation.
Pretty sure the Electoral Commission wouldn’t sign off on anonymous donations.
They can't verify the donation details (ID and permissibility)
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
The preference for the UK is usually to set a higher standard, and then let the builder decide how to make it - with the expectation that they will select the most cost-effective method.
As a philosophy I think that is correct, certainly for tactics if less so for strategy, so that for example if extra insulation is a better way to achieve the same goal that can be done.
But I think the game changes when it is either about eg a more rapid pivot away from gas / oil for security or sustainability reasons, or a perceived strategic need - such as Europe rendering the USA's attempts to dominate worldwide oil supplies by military force largely irrelevant.
I think at some stage the USA will realise that 400bn or 500bn extra spent on military every year, to protect their practice of using 3 or 4 times as much oil and gas as countries that are effectively as rich, but more efficient, is quite dodgy long-term economics.
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
No idea other than an added cost to the price
Which is pretty marginal given you're already putting a roof on it. But I don't think solar should be compulsory in the north of England, Scotland because we already have so much electricity to go around. It's batteries, heat pumps and EV chargers that should be mandatory so we can actually use our wind power.
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
The preference for the UK is usually to set a higher standard, and then let the builder decide how to make it - with the expectation that they will select the most cost-effective method.
As a philosophy I think that is correct, certainly for tactics if less so for strategy, so that for example if extra insulation is a better way to achieve the same goal that can be done.
But I think the game changes when it is either about eg a more rapid pivot away from gas / oil for security or sustainability reasons, or a perceived strategic need - such as Europe rendering the USA's attempts to dominate worldwide oil supplies by military force largely irrelevant.
I think at some stage the USA will realise that 400bn or 500bn extra spent on military every year, to protect their practice of using 3 or 4 times as much oil and gas as countries that are effectively as rich, but more efficient, is quite dodgy long-term economics.
Recently there have been some houses built locally (hesitate to call it an estate) with chimney pots. I have been assured, on quite reasonable authority that they all have central heating, but the planners insisted on chimney pots for aesthetic reasons.
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
No idea other than an added cost to the price
If you're building from scratch nowadays, a solar panel isn't much more expensive than a similar area of tiling. (An exaggeration, but only just).
1. Conservative are shit 2. Labour are shit 3. We're doing a great job in Local Government, saving millions without cutting services. Usual culprits - waste, woke and efficiency savings.
They don't seem to have any local deliverers, canvassers, candidates or local party structure but this is a solid blue area. Just get the feeling the lack of structure will cost them. Their messaging lacks that distinctiveness of an upstart party. It could have been a Conservative Party leaflet.
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
The right would probably make exactly the same criticism of the left.
Just trying to get to grips with Reforms announcenent/white elephant this morning - you enter a lottery and if you win Nigel will set fire to whats left of Jenricks credibility in your hearth to reduce your energy bill?
Kemi Badenoch says Donald Trump's 'childish' attacks on Keir Starmer have been 'quite shocking'. Says she is the PM's 'biggest critic' but adds: 'The last thing we need is a war of words - it's quite childish as well - between the White House and Downing Street.'
Don't think she said 'biggest critic'. AIUI she said she often criticises Starmer. The biggest critics are here on PB.
1. Conservative are shit 2. Labour are shit 3. We're doing a great job in Local Government, saving millions without cutting services. Usual culprits - waste, woke and efficiency savings.
They don't seem to have any local deliverers, canvassers, candidates or local party structure but this is a solid blue area. Just get the feeling the lack of structure will cost them. Their messaging lacks that distinctiveness of an upstart party. It could have been a Conservative Party leaflet.
It will be interesting to see what the Tories (and Lab) have learned from last years shellacking and how effectively they mobilise their superior canvass and GOTV operations in their key areas in response
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
The preference for the UK is usually to set a higher standard, and then let the builder decide how to make it - with the expectation that they will select the most cost-effective method.
As a philosophy I think that is correct, certainly for tactics if less so for strategy, so that for example if extra insulation is a better way to achieve the same goal that can be done.
But I think the game changes when it is either about eg a more rapid pivot away from gas / oil for security or sustainability reasons, or a perceived strategic need - such as Europe rendering the USA's attempts to dominate worldwide oil supplies by military force largely irrelevant.
I think at some stage the USA will realise that 400bn or 500bn extra spent on military every year, to protect their practice of using 3 or 4 times as much oil and gas as countries that are effectively as rich, but more efficient, is quite dodgy long-term economics.
Recently there have been some houses built locally (hesitate to call it an estate) with chimney pots. I have been assured, on quite reasonable authority that they all have central heating, but the planners insisted on chimney pots for aesthetic reasons.
Some of it probably is retro aesthetics- we have a collective unconscious idea of what a house should look like, and solar panels aren't part of it.
Beyond that, it's probably our dislike of capital spending, even if the payback time is pretty short.
Just trying to get to grips with Reforms announcenent/white elephant this morning - you enter a lottery and if you win Nigel will set fire to whats left of Jenricks credibility in your hearth to reduce your energy bill?
I'm only entering if Isabel Oakeshott is forced to come back to 'shit hole' Britain to present the prize.
Removal of Ali Larijani and his replacement by Saeed Jalili at the SNSC is just another step in the 'hardlining' of the Iranian regime. Not weakening, but 'hardlining.'
Just trying to get to grips with Reforms announcenent/white elephant this morning - you enter a lottery and if you win Nigel will set fire to whats left of Jenricks credibility in your hearth to reduce your energy bill?
I'm only entering if Isabel Oakeshott is forced to come back to 'shit hole' Britain to present the prize.
Just trying to get to grips with Reforms announcenent/white elephant this morning - you enter a lottery and if you win Nigel will set fire to whats left of Jenricks credibility in your hearth to reduce your energy bill?
I'm only entering if Isabel Oakeshott is forced to come back to 'shit hole' Britain to present the prize.
Why?! It took all that effort to get rid of her, and now you want to bring her back?
1. Conservative are shit 2. Labour are shit 3. We're doing a great job in Local Government, saving millions without cutting services. Usual culprits - waste, woke and efficiency savings.
They don't seem to have any local deliverers, canvassers, candidates or local party structure but this is a solid blue area. Just get the feeling the lack of structure will cost them. Their messaging lacks that distinctiveness of an upstart party. It could have been a Conservative Party leaflet.
In government they will be slashing people's energy bills via an attack on Quangos. Very popular in their focus groups apparently. When asked which they'd rather have, cheaper bills or Quangos, the almost unanimous response was cheaper bills.
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
The right would probably make exactly the same criticism of the left.
They may well; but the important question is whether such narratives provably true or false, and how clearly is that the case.
My take on why both RefUK and Cons struggle is because their mainspring is putting out reactive / reactionary narratives, rather than having much of a policy base.
I'd make a similar criticism of Starmer's Labour. They are still letting others choose the battlefield.
1. Conservative are shit 2. Labour are shit 3. We're doing a great job in Local Government, saving millions without cutting services. Usual culprits - waste, woke and efficiency savings.
They don't seem to have any local deliverers, canvassers, candidates or local party structure but this is a solid blue area. Just get the feeling the lack of structure will cost them. Their messaging lacks that distinctiveness of an upstart party. It could have been a Conservative Party leaflet.
In government they will be slashing people's energy bills via an attack on Quangos. Very popular in their focus groups apparently. When asked which they'd rather have, cheaper bills or Quangos, the almost unanimous response was cheaper bills.
A smarter move would be to put some energy execs into prison. Given the extraordinary number of laws practically all of them have broken that would be fairly easy.
George Finch and his Reform minority administration facing VONC in Warwickshire today. Could become the first Reform run council to collapse. LD/Green rainbow coalition waiting in the wings
Kemi Badenoch says Donald Trump's 'childish' attacks on Keir Starmer have been 'quite shocking'. Says she is the PM's 'biggest critic' but adds: 'The last thing we need is a war of words - it's quite childish as well - between the White House and Downing Street.'
It's not a "war of words". It's Donald Trump shooting his mouth off.
Just trying to get to grips with Reforms announcenent/white elephant this morning - you enter a lottery and if you win Nigel will set fire to whats left of Jenricks credibility in your hearth to reduce your energy bill?
I need a summary of RefUK's position across existing Councils they control or lead.
At that level the potential impact of Rupert Lowe's party, or groupuscules, becomes a factor.
A factor the other is smaller groups, or Right-Independents, potentially providing support. For example as the Cons just did to protect the RefUK Council Leader at Warwickshire in a No Confidence vote.
1. Conservative are shit 2. Labour are shit 3. We're doing a great job in Local Government, saving millions without cutting services. Usual culprits - waste, woke and efficiency savings.
They don't seem to have any local deliverers, canvassers, candidates or local party structure but this is a solid blue area. Just get the feeling the lack of structure will cost them. Their messaging lacks that distinctiveness of an upstart party. It could have been a Conservative Party leaflet.
In government they will be slashing people's energy bills via an attack on Quangos. Very popular in their focus groups apparently. When asked which they'd rather have, cheaper bills or Quangos, the almost unanimous response was cheaper bills.
Heat or Quangos has been an impossible choice for too many families. Hard working ones at that
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
The preference for the UK is usually to set a higher standard, and then let the builder decide how to make it - with the expectation that they will select the most cost-effective method.
As a philosophy I think that is correct, certainly for tactics if less so for strategy, so that for example if extra insulation is a better way to achieve the same goal that can be done.
But I think the game changes when it is either about eg a more rapid pivot away from gas / oil for security or sustainability reasons, or a perceived strategic need - such as Europe rendering the USA's attempts to dominate worldwide oil supplies by military force largely irrelevant.
I think at some stage the USA will realise that 400bn or 500bn extra spent on military every year, to protect their practice of using 3 or 4 times as much oil and gas as countries that are effectively as rich, but more efficient, is quite dodgy long-term economics.
Recently there have been some houses built locally (hesitate to call it an estate) with chimney pots. I have been assured, on quite reasonable authority that they all have central heating, but the planners insisted on chimney pots for aesthetic reasons.
1. Conservative are shit 2. Labour are shit 3. We're doing a great job in Local Government, saving millions without cutting services. Usual culprits - waste, woke and efficiency savings.
They don't seem to have any local deliverers, canvassers, candidates or local party structure but this is a solid blue area. Just get the feeling the lack of structure will cost them. Their messaging lacks that distinctiveness of an upstart party. It could have been a Conservative Party leaflet.
In government they will be slashing people's energy bills via an attack on Quangos. Very popular in their focus groups apparently. When asked which they'd rather have, cheaper bills or Quangos, the almost unanimous response was cheaper bills.
If that was all they stood for, I would be quite happy to vote for that.
Unfortunately they also stand for being racist shitheads.
Removal of Ali Larijani and his replacement by Saeed Jalili at the SNSC is just another step in the 'hardlining' of the Iranian regime. Not weakening, but 'hardlining.'
Just trying to get to grips with Reforms announcenent/white elephant this morning - you enter a lottery and if you win Nigel will set fire to whats left of Jenricks credibility in your hearth to reduce your energy bill?
I need a summary of RefUK's position across existing Councils they control or lead.
At that level the potential impact of Rupert Lowe's party, or groupuscules, becomes a factor.
A factor the other is smaller groups, or Right-Independents, potentially providing support. For example as the Cons just did to protect the RefUK Council Leader at Warwickshire in a No Confidence vote.
Just trying to get to grips with Reforms announcenent/white elephant this morning - you enter a lottery and if you win Nigel will set fire to whats left of Jenricks credibility in your hearth to reduce your energy bill?
I'm only entering if Isabel Oakeshott is forced to come back to 'shit hole' Britain to present the prize.
It would be even better if Richard Lice had to go to Dubai to look after her brood.
Their lunch menu at the White Tower restaurant included the bizarre "Chicken Paxinou" (presumably named after the Greek actress ?), whose ingredients included aubergine, banana, and pineapple, all fried together in butter...
"Cash usage rises for fourth year as Brits continue to value money in their pockets
Cash withdrawn from branch ATMs hit £4.2bn in 2025, surpassing 2017 high of £4bn Cash usage rises for fourth year in a row - nearly 35m withdrawals made from Nationwide ATMs(1)"
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
Entirely boring story. It would only be exciting if Bansksy turned out to be someone who the public already knew, such as Thora Heard, or Nigel Farage...
Thora Hird is long dead.
Perhaps David Hockney, pursuing another eccentric sideline ?
Removal of Ali Larijani and his replacement by Saeed Jalili at the SNSC is just another step in the 'hardlining' of the Iranian regime. Not weakening, but 'hardlining.'
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
That hardly rebuts the description of his "self-justifying narratives ...created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories", though, does it ?
The latter goes some way to explain the general public disillusion regarding his "success".
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
What's Nigel done to be airbrushed out of history?
1. Conservative are shit 2. Labour are shit 3. We're doing a great job in Local Government, saving millions without cutting services. Usual culprits - waste, woke and efficiency savings.
They don't seem to have any local deliverers, canvassers, candidates or local party structure but this is a solid blue area. Just get the feeling the lack of structure will cost them. Their messaging lacks that distinctiveness of an upstart party. It could have been a Conservative Party leaflet.
In government they will be slashing people's energy bills via an attack on Quangos. Very popular in their focus groups apparently. When asked which they'd rather have, cheaper bills or Quangos, the almost unanimous response was cheaper bills.
Suppose they could use quangos as a unit of measurement. 10 quangos saved equal to £100 off Council Tax. But what happens in the subsequent years?
The framing of the question suggests they are not serious or have a poor opinion of their voter base.
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
Just trying to get to grips with Reforms announcenent/white elephant this morning - you enter a lottery and if you win Nigel will set fire to whats left of Jenricks credibility in your hearth to reduce your energy bill?
I need a summary of RefUK's position across existing Councils they control or lead.
At that level the potential impact of Rupert Lowe's party, or groupuscules, becomes a factor.
A factor the other is smaller groups, or Right-Independents, potentially providing support. For example as the Cons just did to protect the RefUK Council Leader at Warwickshire in a No Confidence vote.
West Northants Ref Maj 39/76 North Northabts Ref Maj 39/68 Kent Ref Maj 47/71 Notts Ref Maj 41/66 Derbys Ref Maj 42/66 Lancs Ref Maj 53/84 Staff Ref Maj 47/62 Lincs Ref Maj 44/70 Durham Ref Maj 62/98
Leics Ref Min 23/55 Worcs Ref Min 25/57 Warks Ref min 19/57
Across councils they control or lead, Reform have quickly aligned local policy and structures with their national platform.
- **Culture and branding**: Renaming portfolios (e.g. “neighbourhood and climate change” to “neighbourhoods and environment”; “equality and inclusion” to “stronger communities and belonging”), and removing Pride and Ukrainian flags from civic buildings in favour of UK and local flags.
- Climate and net zero: Curtailing or cancelling local net-zero and broader climate initiatives, reflecting national scepticism about climate policies. - - DEI and equalities: Downgrading or reframing explicit diversity, equality and inclusion work within council structures. [brownejacobson]
## Spending, services and “efficiency”
Reform position themselves as driving “efficiency” and cutting perceived waste rather than expanding services. [bbc]
- Financial stance: Strong rhetoric about reducing “wasteful” spending and slimming bureaucracy; in practice this has focused first on symbolic/corporate changes and governance rules rather than front‑line cuts, though there is pressure on discretionary programmes. - - Governance rules: Changes to committee and scrutiny arrangements to give the leadership more autonomy and speed up decision‑making, sometimes at the expense of traditional cross‑party scrutiny cultures. [brownejacobson]- Performance “test case”: Nationally, their local administrations are being treated (including by the party itself) as a test of their claim to run government more efficiently than previous parties.
## Planning, housing and asylum
On planning and housing, their councils tend to be more restrictive and confrontational with central government where immigration or asylum is involved.
Just trying to get to grips with Reforms announcenent/white elephant this morning - you enter a lottery and if you win Nigel will set fire to whats left of Jenricks credibility in your hearth to reduce your energy bill?
I need a summary of RefUK's position across existing Councils they control or lead.
At that level the potential impact of Rupert Lowe's party, or groupuscules, becomes a factor.
A factor the other is smaller groups, or Right-Independents, potentially providing support. For example as the Cons just did to protect the RefUK Council Leader at Warwickshire in a No Confidence vote.
West Northants Ref Maj 39/76 North Northabts Ref Maj 39/68 Kent Ref Maj 47/71 Notts Ref Maj 41/66 Derbys Ref Maj 42/66 Lancs Ref Maj 53/84 Staff Ref Maj 47/62 Lincs Ref Maj 44/70 Durham Ref Maj 62/98
Leics Ref Min 23/55 Worcs Ref Min 25/57 Warks Ref min 19/57
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
Actually, maybe we're doing it wrong. Maybe we should put people on banknotes we wish to pillory. So, the next set could be Epstein related, and feature Mandelson, the Andrew formerly known as Prince, etc.
In general, we agree on baddies, and -frankly- it's good to remind ourtselves that humans (even British humans) aren't perfect.
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
Classic Dom sold it in three difficult to argue with words, surely, and then won an election with an absolutely crackers individual as the leader.
"Schools in Sweden are returning to more traditional learning methods - such as reading from physical books - after seeing their reading standards drop while ipads and laptops were used.
There is now a focus on using more printed textbooks, handwriting and less screen time in early education. Experts say reading levels are getting better because of this."
The EU attempting to strongarm Ukraine into allowing Russia to transfer oil through Ukraine in order to finance its war machine is one of the most shameful chapters of this war to date.
Orban is indulging in some last minute plunder ahead of the election.
The mafia government, in its final days, has put the magnificent building of the Ministry of Finance up for sale, following the Ministry of the Interior, with a two-day deadline. Before the election, they want to hand over what remains of the nation’s assets to the "Dynasty." A TISZA government will declare all such sales null and void, and we will hold every participant accountable. https://x.com/magyarpeterMP/status/2033870220771664252
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
No idea other than an added cost to the price
The expensive part about solar these days is installation: the people bolting it to your (existing) roof will be 80% of the cost. If you're putting it on the roof when the house is being buillt, that will reduce the cost dramatically.
Outside the UK -especially in places like Nevada and Arizona- there's a large and growing market for window panes, with integrated solar cells. They act as tinted windows, not letting all the light in, converting some of it to solar. Longer-term I hope they'll show up here too.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
Actually, maybe we're doing it wrong. Maybe we should put people on banknotes we wish to pillory. So, the next set could be Epstein related, and feature Mandelson, the Andrew formerly known as Prince, etc.
In general, we agree on baddies, and -frankly- it's good to remind ourtselves that humans (even British humans) aren't perfect.
Shipman, Savile, Lord Haw Haw, that woman who chucked cats in wheely bins....
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
"Schools in Sweden are returning to more traditional learning methods - such as reading from physical books - after seeing their reading standards drop while ipads and laptops were used.
There is now a focus on using more printed textbooks, handwriting and less screen time in early education. Experts say reading levels are getting better because of this."
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go. Not sure what poor Jane Austen did
As someone given to splenetic rage this actually doesn't particularly irk me. But as part of a larger neutralisation and degradation of Britishness and British identity into meaningless greige ("to be British is to value diversity" - oh do fuck off) then it is genuinely sad
Incidentally this is the reason euro coins and notes are so bland and boring. They decided that 23 countries would never agree on heroes and heroines - Napoleon might be loved in France but, er.... and so forth
So they went for totally generic pictures of bridges and walls and ludicrous nullities like that
"Schools in Sweden are returning to more traditional learning methods - such as reading from physical books - after seeing their reading standards drop while ipads and laptops were used.
There is now a focus on using more printed textbooks, handwriting and less screen time in early education. Experts say reading levels are getting better because of this."
Orban is indulging in some last minute plunder ahead of the election.
The mafia government, in its final days, has put the magnificent building of the Ministry of Finance up for sale, following the Ministry of the Interior, with a two-day deadline. Before the election, they want to hand over what remains of the nation’s assets to the "Dynasty." A TISZA government will declare all such sales null and void, and we will hold every participant accountable. https://x.com/magyarpeterMP/status/2033870220771664252
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
If we must have animals they must be non-generic animals which are only found in the UK or at least mostly in the UK.
I vote for Psylliodes luridipennis, the Lundy Cabbage flea beetle.
This is found only on the isle of Lundy, and what's more, only on the Lundy cabbage, which is itself only found on the isle of Lundy.
It is suitably sized for a fiver.
I quite liked Eabhal's suggestion of Manx Shearwater. I once camped not far from their nesting grounds on Rum and the noise at night is, well, something. These are very much a UK/Ireland species and perhaps a bit fluffier for vote gathering.
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
Farage very nearly lost the Brexit vote when he went solo with "those posters". He was so pissed off that Boris was the face of Brexit that he tried to rip back the mantle - and almost lost the prize as a result.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
I think it's essentially that, which I agree is a sad reflection on British disunity and also another victim of the social media age reducing everything to a popularity contest. The Bank of England have faced a lot of criticism from various quarters for their recent choices, which used to be uncontentious and a chance to bring lesser known British historical figures to greater prominence - I hadn't heard of Elizabeth Fry before seeing her on a fiver.
I don't particularly mind what they put on the banknotes, but I think it's a symptom of a deeper malaise.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
I think it's essentially that, which I agree is a sad reflection on British disunity and also another victim of the social media age reducing everything to a popularity contest. The Bank of England have faced a lot of criticism from various quarters for their recent choices, which used to be uncontentious and a chance to bring lesser known British historical figures to greater prominence - I hadn't heard of Elizabeth Fry before seeing her on a fiver.
I don't particularly mind what they put on the banknotes, but I think it's a symptom of a deeper malaise.
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/irans-security-chief-ali-larijani-killed-in-airstrike-israel-says
The legal action just concluded.
(Full gift link for your delectation) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/23553d57c302fbae
When you create a regulation, it isn’t free. You are trying to spend other people’s money.
Without enforcement, the bad drives out good.
Even with large, supposedly reputable firms. In the case of the big builders, they subcontract everything. Which in turn is subcontracted. So they have little or no legal liability - “the contract said enforce all laws and regulations”. At the same time, the cheapest contractor gets the bid.
So we have brand new houses with inadequate foundations and missing insulation. Or apartment blocks with concrete that starts to fail before people move in.
Because there is little or no enforcement, the mass of documents serves to make it look superficially ok. Any enquiry is met with - “read this room full of paper”.
Too much of the *wrong* process is not merely valueless. It create a hiding place - just like complex tax laws.
Many people trying to get justice for such failed building work find that they are priced out of the courts, by the cost getting lawyers to read a mountain of garbage.
Kemi Badenoch says Donald Trump's 'childish' attacks on Keir Starmer have been 'quite shocking'. Says she is the PM's 'biggest critic' but adds: 'The last thing we need is a war of words - it's quite childish as well - between the White House and Downing Street.'
Surely others do too? It's not exactly a demanding target any more since perhaps a decade ago.
I think the first one I noticed was probably the Eco Arch in Kent from Grand Designs 2009 series, who reported a FIT income of several K per annum back in 2009.
It became more difficult when Cameron whacked the Feed in Tariff, having as per usual sat on his arse and neglected to maintain it at a reducing level to control costs and broaden installations. So it became a profit-centre not an incentive, and he whacked it by 2/3.
The idea came back as practical without extreme measures (eg grow all your own wood for the boiler) when higher payments became available for exported electricity units.
House batteries have made it much easier, as has increasing solar efficiency and reducingt cost.
a) More enforcement
b) Less subcontracting as a mechanism to avoid responsbility
Rather than an argument for less process.
The argument I am making is for reducing process to the required purpose. The ends, not the means. We have vast amounts of regulation in the building industry, yet quality is getting worse. There’s a reason many people won’t touch new built.
You need to think in terms of desired outcomes and how to *enforce* them.
Combination of work from home, shorter Ramadan working hours, a general attitude of f*** the war, and Paddy’s day! ☘️🍺
Road building.
Its also something this country has done little of since 2000.
Take a look though at the places where new roads have been built and you see alongside the new roads new housing, new business parks, new industrial estates, new leisure facilities.,
Much of it doesn’t add value in any way, shape or form.
For example, for a domestic loft project, your builder should create a whole document on mitigating the issue of people tripping/slipping on site. Many don’t bother - and break the regulations. No one reads them, anyway. Certainly not the actual workers
The actual answer is “a tidy workplace”. If your builder brings in the Henrys with the kettle*, then he’s probably going to do it right.
*first item installed on any site
Equally disgraceful is the behaviour of the right wing press here who would rejoice if Trump won this case .
She is assisted by sous-street artist Joey Essex
It’s not the builder’s/governments fault that plastic foam can’t read.
"Cash usage rises for fourth year as Brits continue to value money in their pockets
Cash withdrawn from branch ATMs hit £4.2bn in 2025, surpassing 2017 high of £4bn
Cash usage rises for fourth year in a row - nearly 35m withdrawals made from Nationwide ATMs(1)"
https://www.nationwide.co.uk/media/news/cash-usage-rises-for-fourth-year-as-brits-continue-to-value-money-in-their-pockets
Incidentally, I be quite surprised if anonymous donation via crypto passes the existing rules on donation.
Pretty sure the Electoral Commission wouldn’t sign off on anonymous donations.
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Nope. Can we create own brand replicas of the entire branded range.
Erm, we're gonna need a bigger boat...
ISTR its usually a handful?
As a philosophy I think that is correct, certainly for tactics if less so for strategy, so that for example if extra insulation is a better way to achieve the same goal that can be done.
But I think the game changes when it is either about eg a more rapid pivot away from gas / oil for security or sustainability reasons, or a perceived strategic need - such as Europe rendering the USA's attempts to dominate worldwide oil supplies by military force largely irrelevant.
I think at some stage the USA will realise that 400bn or 500bn extra spent on military every year, to protect their practice of using 3 or 4 times as much oil and gas as countries that are effectively as rich, but more efficient, is quite dodgy long-term economics.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
1. Conservative are shit
2. Labour are shit
3. We're doing a great job in Local Government, saving millions without cutting services. Usual culprits - waste, woke and efficiency savings.
They don't seem to have any local deliverers, canvassers, candidates or local party structure but this is a solid blue area. Just get the feeling the lack of structure will cost them. Their messaging lacks that distinctiveness of an upstart party. It could have been a Conservative Party leaflet.
Beyond that, it's probably our dislike of capital spending, even if the payback time is pretty short.
@AlanEyre1
Removal of Ali Larijani and his replacement by Saeed Jalili at the SNSC is just another step in the 'hardlining' of the Iranian regime. Not weakening, but 'hardlining.'
https://x.com/AlanEyre1/status/2033870059790127284
https://x.com/BristOliver/status/2033806193810932132
My take on why both RefUK and Cons struggle is because their mainspring is putting out reactive / reactionary narratives, rather than having much of a policy base.
I'd make a similar criticism of Starmer's Labour. They are still letting others choose the battlefield.
Plus some water company execs...
The BBC are pointing out that one more defection loses the majority at Northants:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rz0jv9r2po
At that level the potential impact of Rupert Lowe's party, or groupuscules, becomes a factor.
A factor the other is smaller groups, or Right-Independents, potentially providing support. For example as the Cons just did to protect the RefUK Council Leader at Warwickshire in a No Confidence vote.
Unfortunately they also stand for being racist shitheads.
I will not vote for that.
Keep at it, until the regime falls or is led by someone who would rather surrender than be the next hit.
https://midcenturybond.wordpress.com/2019/05/16/fleming-old-guard-versus-new-guard/
Their lunch menu at the White Tower restaurant included the bizarre "Chicken Paxinou" (presumably named after the Greek actress ?), whose ingredients included aubergine, banana, and pineapple, all fried together in butter...
Perhaps David Hockney, pursuing another eccentric sideline ?
The latter goes some way to explain the general public disillusion regarding his "success".
The framing of the question suggests they are not serious or have a poor opinion of their voter base.
North Northabts Ref Maj 39/68
Kent Ref Maj 47/71
Notts Ref Maj 41/66
Derbys Ref Maj 42/66
Lancs Ref Maj 53/84
Staff Ref Maj 47/62
Lincs Ref Maj 44/70
Durham Ref Maj 62/98
Leics Ref Min 23/55
Worcs Ref Min 25/57
Warks Ref min 19/57
Doncaster Ref Maj 34/55
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
ChatGPT says
Reform UK–led councils generally follow a consistent pattern: rapid symbolic changes on culture/identity issues, rollback of climate/DEI initiatives, and an emphasis on cutting what they label “waste” while resisting large-scale development and asylum accommodation. [surreypropertylicensing.co](https://surreypropertylicensing.co.uk/news/reform-led-councils-and-what-they-might-mean-for-housing)
## Policy stance and immediate changes
Across councils they control or lead, Reform have quickly aligned local policy and structures with their national platform.
- **Culture and branding**: Renaming portfolios (e.g. “neighbourhood and climate change” to “neighbourhoods and environment”; “equality and inclusion” to “stronger communities and belonging”), and removing Pride and Ukrainian flags from civic buildings in favour of UK and local flags.
- Climate and net zero: Curtailing or cancelling local net-zero and broader climate initiatives, reflecting national scepticism about climate policies.
-
- DEI and equalities: Downgrading or reframing explicit diversity, equality and inclusion work within council structures. [brownejacobson]
## Spending, services and “efficiency”
Reform position themselves as driving “efficiency” and cutting perceived waste rather than expanding services. [bbc]
- Financial stance: Strong rhetoric about reducing “wasteful” spending and slimming bureaucracy; in practice this has focused first on symbolic/corporate changes and governance rules rather than front‑line cuts, though there is pressure on discretionary programmes.
-
- Governance rules: Changes to committee and scrutiny arrangements to give the leadership more autonomy and speed up decision‑making, sometimes at the expense of traditional cross‑party scrutiny cultures. [brownejacobson]- Performance “test case”: Nationally, their local administrations are being treated (including by the party itself) as a test of their claim to run government more efficiently than previous parties.
## Planning, housing and asylum
On planning and housing, their councils tend to be more restrictive and confrontational with central government where immigration or asylum is involved.
## Political significance
- Electoral impact: Local gains—more seats and more controlled councils than any other single party in some 2025 contests—have strengthened their national narrative that the “old parties” are failing locally as well as nationally. [surreypropertylicensing.co](https://surreypropertylicensing.co.uk/news/reform-led-councils-and-what-they-might-mean-for-housing)
- Strategic aim: The party explicitly presents these councils as proof that it can translate protest votes into day‑to‑day administration, with an agenda of cultural conservatism, reduced climate/DEI activity, and tighter control over development and migration. [reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-populist-reform-party-faces-local-authority-tests-2025-10-29/)
In general, we agree on baddies, and -frankly- it's good to remind ourtselves that humans (even British humans) aren't perfect.
Possibly combined or related to the fact I never handle the stuff anymore anyway - but even when I did, I would not have cared.
I care more about the value of money, than what appears printed on it.
"Schools in Sweden are returning to more traditional learning methods - such as reading from physical books - after seeing their reading standards drop while ipads and laptops were used.
There is now a focus on using more printed textbooks, handwriting and less screen time in early education. Experts say reading levels are getting better because of this."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/articles/cx24mw7r9glo
The EU attempting to strongarm Ukraine into allowing Russia to transfer oil through Ukraine in order to finance its war machine is one of the most shameful chapters of this war to date.
The mafia government, in its final days, has put the magnificent building of the Ministry of Finance up for sale, following the Ministry of the Interior, with a two-day deadline.
Before the election, they want to hand over what remains of the nation’s assets to the "Dynasty."
A TISZA government will declare all such sales null and void, and we will hold every participant accountable.
https://x.com/magyarpeterMP/status/2033870220771664252
Outside the UK -especially in places like Nevada and Arizona- there's a large and growing market for window panes, with integrated solar cells. They act as tinted windows, not letting all the light in, converting some of it to solar. Longer-term I hope they'll show up here too.
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
As someone given to splenetic rage this actually doesn't particularly irk me. But as part of a larger neutralisation and degradation of Britishness and British identity into meaningless greige ("to be British is to value diversity" - oh do fuck off) then it is genuinely sad
Incidentally this is the reason euro coins and notes are so bland and boring. They decided that 23 countries would never agree on heroes and heroines - Napoleon might be loved in France but, er.... and so forth
So they went for totally generic pictures of bridges and walls and ludicrous nullities like that
Or indeed textbooks.
I vote for Psylliodes luridipennis, the Lundy Cabbage flea beetle.
This is found only on the isle of Lundy, and what's more, only on the Lundy cabbage, which is itself only found on the isle of Lundy.
It is suitably sized for a fiver.
I quite liked Eabhal's suggestion of Manx Shearwater. I once camped not far from their nesting grounds on Rum and the noise at night is, well, something. These are very much a UK/Ireland species and perhaps a bit fluffier for vote gathering.
I don't particularly mind what they put on the banknotes, but I think it's a symptom of a deeper malaise.