The Be Kind crowd in action with some anti-semitism....
Dame Helen Mirren has been harassed in the street by a pro-Palestine activist calling her an “evil Zionist b----”.
Footage on social media shows the Oscar-winning actress, 80, being accosted as she walked along the street in London with her husband, director Taylor Hackford. In the video, Dame Helen can be seen initially greeting the man with a smile and asking if he is OK as he approaches the couple while filming.
While I deplore the moronic boorishness, afaik Mirren isn’t Jewish. Can you be antisemitic towards a non Semite?
Well she has claimed some distant Jewish lineage.
Also, if I stood in the street targetting people based on the fact they had been to BLM or Stand up Racism type event, throwing in the n word or p word, regardless of colour or creed of those being shouted at, I think most people would think I was a massive racist.
'Xi Jinping is not sitting there in Beijing saying, "I wonder what that Ed Miliband thinks." In the end, of course, renewable energy is going to be the future long term, but by the way, with artificial intelligence, you may well get developments in nuclear fusion, you'll get developments in battery storage. There's a whole new world that will come down the track at us. But right now our energy costs are really high, they're imposing costs on business, we've got this artificial intelligence revolution that's going to use more and more energy. We need more electricity if we're going to go for electric cars, which again we should do, and therefore all I'm saying is the lens through which you judge policy should be cheap energy and electrification, because that's the way the rest of worlds doing it, and it's a sort of quixotic fantasy to think that because Britain's decided, with by the way under 1% of global emissions, it is going to go down a different path at huge expense, it's quixotic to think that the rest of the world is going to follow that. It's not, and it isn't.'
Meanwhile China is following Britain's lead and building humongous quantities of renewable electricity generating capacity.
Whoever Xi Jinping is listening to when he decides energy policy, it certainly isn't Blair.
The difference is that reducing carbon emissions is a side effect, not the objective. They’re not imposing energy austerity on the population.
Quite. China is not against clean energy like Trump or fossil fuel like Miliband.
'Xi Jinping is not sitting there in Beijing saying, "I wonder what that Ed Miliband thinks." In the end, of course, renewable energy is going to be the future long term, but by the way, with artificial intelligence, you may well get developments in nuclear fusion, you'll get developments in battery storage. There's a whole new world that will come down the track at us. But right now our energy costs are really high, they're imposing costs on business, we've got this artificial intelligence revolution that's going to use more and more energy. We need more electricity if we're going to go for electric cars, which again we should do, and therefore all I'm saying is the lens through which you judge policy should be cheap energy and electrification, because that's the way the rest of worlds doing it, and it's a sort of quixotic fantasy to think that because Britain's decided, with by the way under 1% of global emissions, it is going to go down a different path at huge expense, it's quixotic to think that the rest of the world is going to follow that. It's not, and it isn't.'
Meanwhile China is following Britain's lead and building humongous quantities of renewable electricity generating capacity.
Whoever Xi Jinping is listening to when he decides energy policy, it certainly isn't Blair.
The difference is that reducing carbon emissions is a side effect, not the objective. They’re not imposing energy austerity on the population.
Reducing carbon emissions absolutely is an objective of CCP policy. Just not the objective.
'Xi Jinping is not sitting there in Beijing saying, "I wonder what that Ed Miliband thinks." In the end, of course, renewable energy is going to be the future long term, but by the way, with artificial intelligence, you may well get developments in nuclear fusion, you'll get developments in battery storage. There's a whole new world that will come down the track at us. But right now our energy costs are really high, they're imposing costs on business, we've got this artificial intelligence revolution that's going to use more and more energy. We need more electricity if we're going to go for electric cars, which again we should do, and therefore all I'm saying is the lens through which you judge policy should be cheap energy and electrification, because that's the way the rest of worlds doing it, and it's a sort of quixotic fantasy to think that because Britain's decided, with by the way under 1% of global emissions, it is going to go down a different path at huge expense, it's quixotic to think that the rest of the world is going to follow that. It's not, and it isn't.'
Meanwhile China is following Britain's lead and building humongous quantities of renewable electricity generating capacity.
Whoever Xi Jinping is listening to when he decides energy policy, it certainly isn't Blair.
The difference is that reducing carbon emissions is a side effect, not the objective. They’re not imposing energy austerity on the population.
Not so. The Chinese know that Chinese agriculture is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, and that it's in their interests to avoid as much of it as possible. Reducing carbon emissions is an objective.
The difference is that they're in control of the manufacturing for the new energy systems, and that they also recognise the importance of energy abundancy. In Britain we've become obsessed with the idea that energy needs to be rationed. You can reach net zero with energy abundancy. The problem isn't with net zero. The problem is with the specific idea of using energy scarcity to try to get there (which it never could).
I think I have solved the problem of Neets - National Service. Unfortunately we no longer have the barracks, airfields, and ships to house them.
I think Rishi Sunak proposed that in an election campaign once. I wonder how he did?
It wasn't bad politics by the little rat. The tories held on to large parts of the over 70s vote which was the entire purpose of the policy.
To be fair, to have done National Service and still around today, one must in in one's 80's. Last call-up was in 1960 and that was those who'd, so far, been deferred.
The Be Kind crowd in action with some anti-semitism....
Dame Helen Mirren has been harassed in the street by a pro-Palestine activist calling her an “evil Zionist b----”.
Footage on social media shows the Oscar-winning actress, 80, being accosted as she walked along the street in London with her husband, director Taylor Hackford. In the video, Dame Helen can be seen initially greeting the man with a smile and asking if he is OK as he approaches the couple while filming.
While I deplore the moronic boorishness, afaik Mirren isn’t Jewish. Can you be antisemitic towards a non Semite?
If a man can claim to be a woman, surely a non Jew can claim to be a Jew. Or doesn't it work like that?
Well, if you can show me where Mirren claims to be a Jew I might entertain your daft notion, otherwise you’re consigned to the obsessive toilet monitor category. Again.
The Be Kind crowd in action with some anti-semitism....
Dame Helen Mirren has been harassed in the street by a pro-Palestine activist calling her an “evil Zionist b----”.
Footage on social media shows the Oscar-winning actress, 80, being accosted as she walked along the street in London with her husband, director Taylor Hackford. In the video, Dame Helen can be seen initially greeting the man with a smile and asking if he is OK as he approaches the couple while filming.
The Be Kind crowd in action with some anti-semitism....
Dame Helen Mirren has been harassed in the street by a pro-Palestine activist calling her an “evil Zionist b----”.
Footage on social media shows the Oscar-winning actress, 80, being accosted as she walked along the street in London with her husband, director Taylor Hackford. In the video, Dame Helen can be seen initially greeting the man with a smile and asking if he is OK as he approaches the couple while filming.
While I deplore the moronic boorishness, afaik Mirren isn’t Jewish. Can you be antisemitic towards a non Semite?
Well she has claimed some distant Jewish lineage.
Also, if I stood in the street targetting people based on the fact they had been to BLM or Stand up Racism type event, throwing in the n word or p word, regardless of colour or creed of those being shouted at, I think most people would think I was a massive racist.
Ah, so the mere use of the word Zionist classifies one as an antisemite. Aside from all the Israeli and non Israeli Jews who call themselves proud Zionists of course.
'Xi Jinping is not sitting there in Beijing saying, "I wonder what that Ed Miliband thinks." In the end, of course, renewable energy is going to be the future long term, but by the way, with artificial intelligence, you may well get developments in nuclear fusion, you'll get developments in battery storage. There's a whole new world that will come down the track at us. But right now our energy costs are really high, they're imposing costs on business, we've got this artificial intelligence revolution that's going to use more and more energy. We need more electricity if we're going to go for electric cars, which again we should do, and therefore all I'm saying is the lens through which you judge policy should be cheap energy and electrification, because that's the way the rest of worlds doing it, and it's a sort of quixotic fantasy to think that because Britain's decided, with by the way under 1% of global emissions, it is going to go down a different path at huge expense, it's quixotic to think that the rest of the world is going to follow that. It's not, and it isn't.'
Meanwhile China is following Britain's lead and building humongous quantities of renewable electricity generating capacity.
Whoever Xi Jinping is listening to when he decides energy policy, it certainly isn't Blair.
The difference is that reducing carbon emissions is a side effect, not the objective. They’re not imposing energy austerity on the population.
Not so. The Chinese know that Chinese agriculture is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, and that it's in their interests to avoid as much of it as possible. Reducing carbon emissions is an objective.
The difference is that they're in control of the manufacturing for the new energy systems, and that they also recognise the importance of energy abundancy. In Britain we've become obsessed with the idea that energy needs to be rationed. You can reach net zero with energy abundancy. The problem isn't with net zero. The problem is with the specific idea of using energy scarcity to try to get there (which it never could).
Chinese emissions are massively higher than they were when climate change first became a global concern and they will remain so indefinitely.
Reform UK Makerfield candidate Robert Kenyon previously blamed Hillary Clinton for the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing
"With a smile and lipstick... she created ISIS with her foreign policy... had she stayed out of Libya, the bombing wouldn’t have happened" In a social media post, he wrote: "The UK and Europe have witnessed terror attacks as a result of getting rid of Hussein and Gaddafi, we would be safe to walk the Christmas markets, to walk around London and so on had we left them to it"
Are we sure the Reform and original Green candidate didn't get mixed up? The Green one wanted re-migration, the Reform one doesn't like Brexit and is on the Corbyn leftie portion who blame US foreign for every bad thing.
The Be Kind crowd in action with some anti-semitism....
Dame Helen Mirren has been harassed in the street by a pro-Palestine activist calling her an “evil Zionist b----”.
Footage on social media shows the Oscar-winning actress, 80, being accosted as she walked along the street in London with her husband, director Taylor Hackford. In the video, Dame Helen can be seen initially greeting the man with a smile and asking if he is OK as he approaches the couple while filming.
While I deplore the moronic boorishness, afaik Mirren isn’t Jewish. Can you be antisemitic towards a non Semite?
Well she has claimed some distant Jewish lineage.
Also, if I stood in the street targetting people based on the fact they had been to BLM or Stand up Racism type event, throwing in the n word or p word, regardless of colour or creed of those being shouted at, I think most people would think I was a massive racist.
Ah, so the mere use of the word Zionist classifies one as an antisemite. Aside from all the Israeli and non Israeli Jews who call themselves proud Zionists of course.
The use of Zionist / Zio in the manner it is being used is even before October the 7th was being used as thin cover for directly saying Jews.
I think I have solved the problem of Neets - National Service. Unfortunately we no longer have the barracks, airfields, and ships to house them.
I think Rishi Sunak proposed that in an election campaign once. I wonder how he did?
It wasn't bad politics by the little rat. The tories held on to large parts of the over 70s vote which was the entire purpose of the policy.
To be fair, to have done National Service and still around today, one must in in one's 80's. Last call-up was in 1960 and that was those who'd, so far, been deferred.
Anecdotally IME it was quite popular with some over 70s who'd not had to do National Service I'd hypothesize that it was probably more popular with them than those who did it.
'Xi Jinping is not sitting there in Beijing saying, "I wonder what that Ed Miliband thinks." In the end, of course, renewable energy is going to be the future long term, but by the way, with artificial intelligence, you may well get developments in nuclear fusion, you'll get developments in battery storage. There's a whole new world that will come down the track at us. But right now our energy costs are really high, they're imposing costs on business, we've got this artificial intelligence revolution that's going to use more and more energy. We need more electricity if we're going to go for electric cars, which again we should do, and therefore all I'm saying is the lens through which you judge policy should be cheap energy and electrification, because that's the way the rest of worlds doing it, and it's a sort of quixotic fantasy to think that because Britain's decided, with by the way under 1% of global emissions, it is going to go down a different path at huge expense, it's quixotic to think that the rest of the world is going to follow that. It's not, and it isn't.'
Meanwhile China is following Britain's lead and building humongous quantities of renewable electricity generating capacity.
Whoever Xi Jinping is listening to when he decides energy policy, it certainly isn't Blair.
The difference is that reducing carbon emissions is a side effect, not the objective. They’re not imposing energy austerity on the population.
Not so. The Chinese know that Chinese agriculture is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, and that it's in their interests to avoid as much of it as possible. Reducing carbon emissions is an objective.
The difference is that they're in control of the manufacturing for the new energy systems, and that they also recognise the importance of energy abundancy. In Britain we've become obsessed with the idea that energy needs to be rationed. You can reach net zero with energy abundancy. The problem isn't with net zero. The problem is with the specific idea of using energy scarcity to try to get there (which it never could).
Chinese emissions are massively higher than they were when climate change first became a global concern and they will remain so indefinitely.
China has an aim to reach net zero by 2060. I think they will beat that target.
'Xi Jinping is not sitting there in Beijing saying, "I wonder what that Ed Miliband thinks." In the end, of course, renewable energy is going to be the future long term, but by the way, with artificial intelligence, you may well get developments in nuclear fusion, you'll get developments in battery storage. There's a whole new world that will come down the track at us. But right now our energy costs are really high, they're imposing costs on business, we've got this artificial intelligence revolution that's going to use more and more energy. We need more electricity if we're going to go for electric cars, which again we should do, and therefore all I'm saying is the lens through which you judge policy should be cheap energy and electrification, because that's the way the rest of worlds doing it, and it's a sort of quixotic fantasy to think that because Britain's decided, with by the way under 1% of global emissions, it is going to go down a different path at huge expense, it's quixotic to think that the rest of the world is going to follow that. It's not, and it isn't.'
Meanwhile China is following Britain's lead and building humongous quantities of renewable electricity generating capacity.
Whoever Xi Jinping is listening to when he decides energy policy, it certainly isn't Blair.
The difference is that reducing carbon emissions is a side effect, not the objective. They’re not imposing energy austerity on the population.
Not so. The Chinese know that Chinese agriculture is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, and that it's in their interests to avoid as much of it as possible. Reducing carbon emissions is an objective.
The difference is that they're in control of the manufacturing for the new energy systems, and that they also recognise the importance of energy abundancy. In Britain we've become obsessed with the idea that energy needs to be rationed. You can reach net zero with energy abundancy. The problem isn't with net zero. The problem is with the specific idea of using energy scarcity to try to get there (which it never could).
Chinese emissions are massively higher than they were when climate change first became a global concern and they will remain so indefinitely.
As shown with the tragic coal mining accident this week in China - they are still mining and using coal.
It looks as though the MIlburn Report will be a damning indictment of failure of successive Governments who have seriously compromised the future propects of a generation.
When I was in local Government, and I confess I was only on the periphery of this, there was a requirement for every 16-18 year old certainly to be either in work, education, training or on some scheme. The Council partnered with a provider and used space at local libraries and youth centres to run the training.
It's always been the way (well, it was when I graduated back in the late Permian) employers are reluctant to take on staff, however well qualified, without experience and you can't get that experience without a job. The public sector did its bit - we took on trainees in a number of the professions and supported them through their qualifications in the sure knowledge once they got their accreditation, they would be off to a much better paid job in the private sector.
There was of course a time when every graduate became a barista but I suspect that's not the case. I worked in betting shops marking the board as was the fashion in the Triassic.
There's a lot of talk about apprenticeships and that has to be the way to go for those less academically gifted but that needs far more from all sectors of industry than seems to be about currently.
The cost of everything, the value of nothing.
Boris wave
Park a problem that had built up before Covid and which Boris palpably ignilored after it.
Regards
You can do apprenticeships in various professions, you always could, engineering via CAD trainee to HND or degree, legal exec to solicitor, accountancy etc, whether the "new" apprenticeships have added anything
Pretty scary numbers if the official figures in a month's time confirm this:
It's very preliminary data, but I think that the region of the UK with the highest fiscal deficit as % of GVA has moved for the first time I've ever known it, to be in England...
..The erosion of the economy of the English Midlands from being a net contributor to the national finances in 2000 to now running a bigger deficit than Greece at the deepest point of its financial crisis is an economic catastrophe and a deep threat to our country's survival. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2059748175947194392
During 2017 one friend of mine, then the organist at Cannock, spoke of his great frustration that politicians talked all about the financial markets in London and not one of them understood that manufacturing was the backbone of the economy of the Midlands.
He was right then and he's right now, but it's probably too late to do much about it.
I used to work at the lighting factory in Cannock. Not there anymore.
Used to employ hundreds.
Manufacturing has been in decline for many years and people in power happy for it to be. Same with hospitality
People in manufacturing say it’s ’leccy prices that have been killing them, the last few years.
Consumers have been protected,
Among other things, it blocks productivity improvement - install machinery, then pay a fortune to run it.
Well why would you even bother ?
Just thrash your existing assets.
High energy pricing certainly is a problem. Less so for a screwdriver facility than a primary manufacturer like a trade moulder or casting company.
Who would set up a manufacturing company in the UK that was energy intensive now unless you’re going to get a lot of cash from HMG.
But there have been other problems too. Govt policy has not been keen to keep key product or commodity production in this country.
My last company was fortunate that it was able to negotiate a corporate deal for electricity. It was still a big chunk of spend. They, foolishly, invested in new end capping machines which use a fair bit of electricity in the process as it’s hot plate welding. All to grow the Business.
The growth never came as the sale price was too high so they had part utilised assets. Cut the price and you’re on the corporate naughty step for too low a margin.
If the new machinery was more energy efficient it could be worth it perhaps. The consumer support was politically expedient stupidity, it did nothing to promote energy efficiency that would have had longterm benefits, just subsidised demand.
We already spend enormous amounts on "apprenticeships" though, do we not?
Now renamed to something else, but raising £4.4 billion per annum:
The Growth and Skills Levy (formerly the Apprenticeship Levy) is expected to raise approximately £4.4 billion for the current financial year. This funding is primarily generated by UK employers with an annual pay bill exceeding £3 million, who contribute 0.5% of their payroll into the scheme. (Google AI answring the question.)
I'm not close enough to it to know whether it is effective, or whether employers have found ways of diverting the money into something else (aiui the mechanism is quite circular).
On electricity prices, I think there needs to be some more flexibility in the market - somehow. We need to stop teh price of cheap renewables being determined by the price of expensive, volatile, gas. SKS has failed to do it, for reasons I cannot fathom.
A mechanism is required for heavy users to avoid the slings and arrows over the long term, and another to let the lower prices of renewables be widely apparent.
There are things we can point to - the freeze on any new rounds of wind projects from 2010 to 2020 being one, but SKS has metaphorically stood in the Farage Firing Range and machine-gunned himself in the head, with Farage needing to do nothing.
Sorry, but once again, this has been comprehensively debunked, so perhaps we can stop with it. Renewables are not cheaper. Nor are they getting cheaper - the strike price on new wind has afaik gone UP because nobody was interested in bidding for the contracts.
I think we agree to disagree on that one !
I think @Luckyguy1983 's claim that climate change is a hoax has been comprehensively debunked.
So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?
Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
Leftwards or rightwards?
I can't tell any more.
Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.
* Introduce PR (majority of public in favour) * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour) * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing) * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.
In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control
Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.
I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well. If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working. It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.
I think it's a good model.
EDIT: It looks as if Horse and I are in agreement on this.
The model does have a problem. As Abby Innes pointed out in "New Soviet Britain" (review, video), eventually the suppliers seize control of the franchise and the Government is reduced to bargaining games.
In cases where the Government is held responsible for the results, it has to take control and it has to do that by taking things in-house. Outsourcing eventually goes wrong
The Be Kind crowd in action with some anti-semitism....
Dame Helen Mirren has been harassed in the street by a pro-Palestine activist calling her an “evil Zionist b----”.
Footage on social media shows the Oscar-winning actress, 80, being accosted as she walked along the street in London with her husband, director Taylor Hackford. In the video, Dame Helen can be seen initially greeting the man with a smile and asking if he is OK as he approaches the couple while filming.
While I deplore the moronic boorishness, afaik Mirren isn’t Jewish. Can you be antisemitic towards a non Semite?
Well she has claimed some distant Jewish lineage.
Also, if I stood in the street targetting people based on the fact they had been to BLM or Stand up Racism type event, throwing in the n word or p word, regardless of colour or creed of those being shouted at, I think most people would think I was a massive racist.
'Xi Jinping is not sitting there in Beijing saying, "I wonder what that Ed Miliband thinks." In the end, of course, renewable energy is going to be the future long term, but by the way, with artificial intelligence, you may well get developments in nuclear fusion, you'll get developments in battery storage. There's a whole new world that will come down the track at us. But right now our energy costs are really high, they're imposing costs on business, we've got this artificial intelligence revolution that's going to use more and more energy. We need more electricity if we're going to go for electric cars, which again we should do, and therefore all I'm saying is the lens through which you judge policy should be cheap energy and electrification, because that's the way the rest of worlds doing it, and it's a sort of quixotic fantasy to think that because Britain's decided, with by the way under 1% of global emissions, it is going to go down a different path at huge expense, it's quixotic to think that the rest of the world is going to follow that. It's not, and it isn't.'
Meanwhile China is following Britain's lead and building humongous quantities of renewable electricity generating capacity.
Whoever Xi Jinping is listening to when he decides energy policy, it certainly isn't Blair.
The difference is that reducing carbon emissions is a side effect, not the objective. They’re not imposing energy austerity on the population.
Not so. The Chinese know that Chinese agriculture is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, and that it's in their interests to avoid as much of it as possible. Reducing carbon emissions is an objective.
The difference is that they're in control of the manufacturing for the new energy systems, and that they also recognise the importance of energy abundancy. In Britain we've become obsessed with the idea that energy needs to be rationed. You can reach net zero with energy abundancy. The problem isn't with net zero. The problem is with the specific idea of using energy scarcity to try to get there (which it never could).
Chinese emissions are massively higher than they were when climate change first became a global concern and they will remain so indefinitely.
As shown with the tragic coal mining accident this week in China - they are still mining and using coal.
A case of two things being able to be true at once.
PRC produces vast amounts of emissions and is using coal at a prodigious rate. PRC is moving towards green energy at speed.
Update on Isle of Wight Council and it appears they had a very exciting 19-19 tied vote*, with the Vice-Chair (a Conservative) using their casting vote for the incumbent Independent Chair.
*There's 39 councillors total, so with the chair out of the room they had a full attendance it seems. Their website shows 19 Reform councillors, so I guess everyone else voted against them.
The vote for the chair is a bit misleading, as with Reform having 19 out of 39 councillors, all the other groups were clearly sensible to avoid handing Reform a casting vote on top. For the rest of the meeting, the anti-Reform rainbow alliance that this vote might have signalled, failed to materialise.
When the committee chair appointments were made, it became obvious that there has been some sort of a deal between Reform and the Independent Group - now calling themselves the Island First Network and comprising just six councillors but including some of those formerly cabinet members/committee chairs who have been administering the council prior. The IFN councillors kept their chair spots, and the other committees are all now chaired by Reform, the IFN taking it in turns to ‘lend’ Reform the extra vote they needed to defeat the opposing nominee from the Tory, LibDem or Green groups.
Reform didn’t put forward a leadership nominee, and the leadership went to another Independent councillor formerly of the IFN but who fell out with his colleagues when, as education cabinet member, he went to the wire on defending some local school closures only for his cabinet colleagues to get cold feet and pull the rug out from under him a few days before the crucial council meeting. Since both Reform and the IFN voted for the guy to become leader, one assumes there’s been some mending of relationships, but the new leader (who’s actually been leader before, way back) has chosen to sit outside all groups and ‘bring people together’. Good luck with that. His deputy is now one of the Reform guys.
On the upside, this Reform/Independent arrangement does at least command a majority, compared to the anticipated rainbow anti-Reform coalition with its majority of one. But it’s a potentially very flaky arrangement - and as someone who voted independent specifically to keep Reform out (and being far from alone in that), it’s not impressive that the re-elected independent councillors promptly sold themselves to Reform in return for keeping their special allowance payments.
Indies keep their options open. In Wiltshire there is a LD minority leadership, but the Chair is Conservative.
The Be Kind crowd in action with some anti-semitism....
Dame Helen Mirren has been harassed in the street by a pro-Palestine activist calling her an “evil Zionist b----”.
Footage on social media shows the Oscar-winning actress, 80, being accosted as she walked along the street in London with her husband, director Taylor Hackford. In the video, Dame Helen can be seen initially greeting the man with a smile and asking if he is OK as he approaches the couple while filming.
On topic. I see Talarico is last price matched 30 for the Dem POTUS nomination and is available at 55 to back in the next POTUS market. I had £4.61 on him to be next POTUS at 110 last night.
I only checked him out for the first time last night. A great speaker. Charismatic, principled, tolerant, inclusive. I like him a lot! Anyone give him a realistic chance?
That's interesting. Why was he out at 110?
I had £20 on him at 90 when someone tipped him a couple of months ago. I think it is 80% a trading bet.
My skills at judging POTUS candidates are not very good ! But to evaluate Talarico and the landscape - to me he is far more like a black evangelical in the USA, or a mainstream British evangelical, than he is a Trump supporting white evangelical.
I was expecting more prominent evisceration of Trump by the black evangelical community, but it may be I have just missed it. Talarico is one person doing that job - ie standing up for what I would regard as an orthodox evangelical view, I characterise either the Hegseth emphasis (imo he like the Dutch Reformed in South Africa) or the Paula White emphasis (prosperity gospel / pastor-con-artist tradition) as what evangelicals call "another gospel" (ie, heretical).
For British evangelicals, the heroes defining the tradition are people like Wesley, Wilberforce, and Lord Shaftesbury - that is preaching / social action, opposing slavery for 50 years, and being the key Victorian "improve society" Parliamentarian. More recently it would be Rev John Stott. In the UK the "Pete Hegseth" type tradition is marginal; I can probably only point you at a single prominent church minister I would call Christian Nationalist in the mainstream (Rev Jamie Bambrick of Hope Church, Craigavon - Church of Ireland, 40k subs on Youtube). The core organisation is the Evangelical Alliance, which functions as the evangelical denomination for many independents.
That is Anglican-focussed, but the non-conformist evangelical trends in the UK are mainly parallel since say 1950.
People in the Hegseth type tradition are the theological descendants of people who defended slavery; that is why the Southern Baptists were formed, and they did not apologise officially for supporting slavery until 1995. That Christian Right tradition was recast around 'personal morality' (abortion, marriage, sexual orientation, rejection of the "social gospel") in the 1970s, and has not shifted. But things like racism, justice, money etc were written out of the programme. I'd describe that as a process of self-siloing, driven by people like Jerry Falwell. That is a severe contrast to USA black evangelicals, and to the UK.
We have seen similar controversy around the personal morality, and church organisation, but here there has never been controversy on the basics of social action. eg the Prosperity Gospel has never made many inroads here. Recently we have seen more influence dripping in via groups such as Turning Point and Alliance Defending freedom.
My impression was the prosperity gospel is quite big with some African-origin churches.
Yes - that's true. In a broad summary such the above I'd characterise those groups as marginal.
Those most prominent would perhaps be Kingsway International Christian Centre (KICC), around 10-12k congregants, who had a scandal around 2009, where (aiui) they gave a lot of church money to an unqualified "investment adviser" to invest, and lost several million. They had earlier governance problems, where the Pastor was both an employee and a trustee.
KICC are an offshoot of a Nigerian group, are in majority a Nigerian-origin congregation, and reflect the USA type structure (eg Paula White) - single church as an independent organisation, with limited external checks and balances. The Charity Commission did what they did, but it is the norm to have greater checks and balances, both cultural and organisational.
My very rough theory of the prosperity gospel is that it is a sociological phenomenon, and occurs where people are either wealthy enough to need a theology to help them justify their position in the face of Christian teaching, or poor enough for it to give a dream of a better life, or have a view that they are one or the other.
Reform UK Makerfield candidate Robert Kenyon previously blamed Hillary Clinton for the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing
"With a smile and lipstick... she created ISIS with her foreign policy... had she stayed out of Libya, the bombing wouldn’t have happened" In a social media post, he wrote: "The UK and Europe have witnessed terror attacks as a result of getting rid of Hussein and Gaddafi, we would be safe to walk the Christmas markets, to walk around London and so on had we left them to it"
Are we sure the Reform and original Green candidate didn't get mixed up? The Green one wanted re-migration, the Reform one doesn't like Brexit and is on the Corbyn leftie portion who blame US foreign for every bad thing.
The Fukkers have outdone themselves here. This van driving moron is special even by their spectacular standards. Big Roop seems to have been much more savvy with his choice of candidate. The truly depressing thing for the tories is that nobody cares enough to check what their candidate has said and done.
'Xi Jinping is not sitting there in Beijing saying, "I wonder what that Ed Miliband thinks." In the end, of course, renewable energy is going to be the future long term, but by the way, with artificial intelligence, you may well get developments in nuclear fusion, you'll get developments in battery storage. There's a whole new world that will come down the track at us. But right now our energy costs are really high, they're imposing costs on business, we've got this artificial intelligence revolution that's going to use more and more energy. We need more electricity if we're going to go for electric cars, which again we should do, and therefore all I'm saying is the lens through which you judge policy should be cheap energy and electrification, because that's the way the rest of worlds doing it, and it's a sort of quixotic fantasy to think that because Britain's decided, with by the way under 1% of global emissions, it is going to go down a different path at huge expense, it's quixotic to think that the rest of the world is going to follow that. It's not, and it isn't.'
Meanwhile China is following Britain's lead and building humongous quantities of renewable electricity generating capacity.
Whoever Xi Jinping is listening to when he decides energy policy, it certainly isn't Blair.
The difference is that reducing carbon emissions is a side effect, not the objective. They’re not imposing energy austerity on the population.
Not so. The Chinese know that Chinese agriculture is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, and that it's in their interests to avoid as much of it as possible. Reducing carbon emissions is an objective.
The difference is that they're in control of the manufacturing for the new energy systems, and that they also recognise the importance of energy abundancy. In Britain we've become obsessed with the idea that energy needs to be rationed. You can reach net zero with energy abundancy. The problem isn't with net zero. The problem is with the specific idea of using energy scarcity to try to get there (which it never could).
Chinese emissions are massively higher than they were when climate change first became a global concern and they will remain so indefinitely.
As shown with the tragic coal mining accident this week in China - they are still mining and using coal.
Given events in the Middle East you might expect this not to be repeated this year, as coal use may likely increase to replace some gas, but we're still at the cusp of a major change. All the, "what about China?" talking points will start to look very silly.
The Be Kind crowd in action with some anti-semitism....
Dame Helen Mirren has been harassed in the street by a pro-Palestine activist calling her an “evil Zionist b----”.
Footage on social media shows the Oscar-winning actress, 80, being accosted as she walked along the street in London with her husband, director Taylor Hackford. In the video, Dame Helen can be seen initially greeting the man with a smile and asking if he is OK as he approaches the couple while filming.
While I deplore the moronic boorishness, afaik Mirren isn’t Jewish. Can you be antisemitic towards a non Semite?
If a man can claim to be a woman, surely a non Jew can claim to be a Jew. Or doesn't it work like that?
Non-Jews can claim to be Jews. The conversion process, although difficult, does exist. Incidentally, this is a plot point in "Sex And The City". And I now feel very old.
There is also the case of non-Jewish men married to Jewish women, who (matrilinearly) will give birth to Jewish children fathered by those non-Jewish men. Keir Starmer is such a case. Whilst not Jewish, you could make a case for saying he is Jew-ish, to steal a David Baddiel joke.
I appreciate this was not the point you were making, but I just thought I'd point it out.
On topic. I see Talarico is last price matched 30 for the Dem POTUS nomination and is available at 55 to back in the next POTUS market. I had £4.61 on him to be next POTUS at 110 last night.
I only checked him out for the first time last night. A great speaker. Charismatic, principled, tolerant, inclusive. I like him a lot! Anyone give him a realistic chance?
That's interesting. Why was he out at 110?
I had £20 on him at 90 when someone tipped him a couple of months ago. I think it is 80% a trading bet.
My skills at judging POTUS candidates are not very good ! But to evaluate Talarico and the landscape - to me he is far more like a black evangelical in the USA, or a mainstream British evangelical, than he is a Trump supporting white evangelical.
I was expecting more prominent evisceration of Trump by the black evangelical community, but it may be I have just missed it. Talarico is one person doing that job - ie standing up for what I would regard as an orthodox evangelical view, I characterise either the Hegseth emphasis (imo he like the Dutch Reformed in South Africa) or the Paula White emphasis (prosperity gospel / pastor-con-artist tradition) as what evangelicals call "another gospel" (ie, heretical).
For British evangelicals, the heroes defining the tradition are people like Wesley, Wilberforce, and Lord Shaftesbury - that is preaching / social action, opposing slavery for 50 years, and being the key Victorian "improve society" Parliamentarian. More recently it would be Rev John Stott. In the UK the "Pete Hegseth" type tradition is marginal; I can probably only point you at a single prominent church minister I would call Christian Nationalist in the mainstream (Rev Jamie Bambrick of Hope Church, Craigavon - Church of Ireland, 40k subs on Youtube). The core organisation is the Evangelical Alliance, which functions as the evangelical denomination for many independents.
That is Anglican-focussed, but the non-conformist evangelical trends in the UK are mainly parallel since say 1950.
People in the Hegseth type tradition are the theological descendants of people who defended slavery; that is why the Southern Baptists were formed, and they did not apologise officially for supporting slavery until 1995. That Christian Right tradition was recast around 'personal morality' (abortion, marriage, sexual orientation, rejection of the "social gospel") in the 1970s, and has not shifted. But things like racism, justice, money etc were written out of the programme. I'd describe that as a process of self-siloing, driven by people like Jerry Falwell. That is a severe contrast to USA black evangelicals, and to the UK.
We have seen similar controversy around the personal morality, and church organisation, but here there has never been controversy on the basics of social action. eg the Prosperity Gospel has never made many inroads here. Recently we have seen more influence dripping in via groups such as Turning Point and Alliance Defending freedom.
My impression was the prosperity gospel is quite big with some African-origin churches.
Yes - that's true. In a broad summary such the above I'd characterise those groups as marginal.
Those most prominent would perhaps be Kingsway International Christian Centre (KICC), around 10-12k congregants, who had a scandal around 2009, where (aiui) they gave a lot of church money to an unqualified "investment adviser" to invest, and lost several million. They had earlier governance problems, where the Pastor was both an employee and a trustee.
KICC are an offshoot of a Nigerian group, are in majority a Nigerian-origin congregation, and reflect the USA type structure (eg Paula White) - single church as an independent organisation, with limited external checks and balances. The Charity Commission did what they did, but it is the norm to have greater checks and balances, both cultural and organisational.
My very rough theory of the prosperity gospel is that it is a sociological phenomenon, and occurs where people are either wealthy enough to need a theology to help them justify their position in the face of Christian teaching, or poor enough for it to give a dream of a better life, or have a view that they are one or the other.
Clarification: they are founded by a Nigerian Evangelist, rather than being an offshoot of a Nigerian group.
Update on Isle of Wight Council and it appears they had a very exciting 19-19 tied vote*, with the Vice-Chair (a Conservative) using their casting vote for the incumbent Independent Chair.
*There's 39 councillors total, so with the chair out of the room they had a full attendance it seems. Their website shows 19 Reform councillors, so I guess everyone else voted against them.
The vote for the chair is a bit misleading, as with Reform having 19 out of 39 councillors, all the other groups were clearly sensible to avoid handing Reform a casting vote on top. For the rest of the meeting, the anti-Reform rainbow alliance that this vote might have signalled, failed to materialise.
When the committee chair appointments were made, it became obvious that there has been some sort of a deal between Reform and the Independent Group - now calling themselves the Island First Network and comprising just six councillors but including some of those formerly cabinet members/committee chairs who have been administering the council prior. The IFN councillors kept their chair spots, and the other committees are all now chaired by Reform, the IFN taking it in turns to ‘lend’ Reform the extra vote they needed to defeat the opposing nominee from the Tory, LibDem or Green groups.
Reform didn’t put forward a leadership nominee, and the leadership went to another Independent councillor formerly of the IFN but who fell out with his colleagues when, as education cabinet member, he went to the wire on defending some local school closures only for his cabinet colleagues to get cold feet and pull the rug out from under him a few days before the crucial council meeting. Since both Reform and the IFN voted for the guy to become leader, one assumes there’s been some mending of relationships, but the new leader (who’s actually been leader before, way back) has chosen to sit outside all groups and ‘bring people together’. Good luck with that. His deputy is now one of the Reform guys.
On the upside, this Reform/Independent arrangement does at least command a majority, compared to the anticipated rainbow anti-Reform coalition with its majority of one. But it’s a potentially very flaky arrangement - and as someone who voted independent specifically to keep Reform out (and being far from alone in that), it’s not impressive that the re-elected independent councillors promptly sold themselves to Reform in return for keeping their special allowance payments.
Indies keep their options open. In Wiltshire there is a LD minority leadership, but the Chair is Conservative.
The Be Kind crowd in action with some anti-semitism....
Dame Helen Mirren has been harassed in the street by a pro-Palestine activist calling her an “evil Zionist b----”.
Footage on social media shows the Oscar-winning actress, 80, being accosted as she walked along the street in London with her husband, director Taylor Hackford. In the video, Dame Helen can be seen initially greeting the man with a smile and asking if he is OK as he approaches the couple while filming.
While I deplore the moronic boorishness, afaik Mirren isn’t Jewish. Can you be antisemitic towards a non Semite?
She went to a Catholic school. And if she'd been Jewish, living in Southend there were plenty of alternatives.
Having had lunch with her in Stratford I can confirm she isn't Jewish though her boyfriend at the time -Bruce Myers- was. His Father and mine were best friends and Helen and Bruce invited my parents and his and respective families for lunch and to see a play later. My brother had just learnt to drive and all these years later had he been the type he got the best show off of all as he gave her a lift back to london that evening
For young people the welfare state needs to become a spring board to work and not a safety net.
Alan Milburn.
As someone on here asked earlier - why on earth didn't they do this report while in opposition and preparing for government?
Ming Empty Vase strategy....
There is a big problem that none of the major parties are really doing the hard yards, investigating problems and thinking hard about solutions. Instead its stuff like overtime tax free, abolish stamp duty, etc type policies without being a) thought out and b) are wider joined up package.
There has also become a lot of starting with a particular idealogical policy in mind and working backwards, and that goes for think tanks as well.
Abolishing stamp duty is an excellent policy with basically no downsides though. No real need for a wider joined up package there because the deadweight costs of the tax are so high. Can get rid of stamp taxes on shares at the same time - the deadweight cost of that tax exceeds the amount raised.
Some policies really are “do this & everyone ends up better off” - the problem is that the system (for good reasons) has enormous inertia & change is politically difficult. The way the OBR accounts for tax revenue has become a huge barrier to any real change in the system - they are simultaneously barred from taking into account any economic growth from abandoning stupid taxes whilst also forced to believe that the current government will definitely raise taxes in the final year of this Parliament. Huge incentive for any Chancellor to promise future tax rises that won’t happen in the Budget instead of actually fixing anything.
So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?
Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
Leftwards or rightwards?
I can't tell any more.
Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.
* Introduce PR (majority of public in favour) * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour) * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing) * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.
In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control
Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.
I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well. If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working. It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.
I think it's a good model.
EDIT: It looks as if Horse and I are in agreement on this.
The model does have a problem. As Abby Innes pointed out in "New Soviet Britain" (review, video), eventually the suppliers seize control of the franchise and the Government is reduced to bargaining games.
In cases where the Government is held responsible for the results, it has to take control and it has to do that by taking things in-house. Outsourcing eventually goes wrong
And you can have multiple bus operators. The bus analogy to Thames Water would be handing control of the roads to a franchise operator.
So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?
Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
Leftwards or rightwards?
I can't tell any more.
Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.
* Introduce PR (majority of public in favour) * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour) * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing) * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.
In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control
Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.
I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well. If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working. It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.
I think it's a good model.
EDIT: It looks as if Horse and I are in agreement on this.
I think the distinction is whether the supervisory body believes that strong regulation is necessary to the extent to maintain support for it.
There is an analogy with corporate outsourcing, and the contrast between just letting it go, or retaining enough in house expertise such that the outsourcing supplier is kept on their toes.
An interview with a reporter who has been digging into the emails, and identified (allegedly!) another of his procurers, who has links to a figure still in the Trump administration.
Vickrum Digwa used a 21cm (8in) blade he said he carried as part of his Sikh faith to kill 18-year-old Henry Nowak, who was walking home from a night out in Southampton on 3 December.
Digwa, 23, told Southampton Crown Court he had acted in self defence, claiming the teenager had used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off.
However, the jury rejected this defence and found him guilty of murder.
Digwa was also found guilty of carrying a knife in public and his mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was found guilty of assisting an offender.
Kaur appeared visibly upset in the dock as the verdict was read out, while Digwa showed little emotion and gazed out into the courtroom.
Sobs could be heard at the back of the public gallery, while Nowak's family let out a sigh and hugged as they left the room.
Judge William Mousley thanked the jury for their "essential service" in what he described as a "particularly difficult case".
He added that he was "impressed by the dignity and respect by the people attending".
Digwa will be sentenced on Monday afternoon at Southampton Crown Court, while his mother will be sentenced on Friday 17 July.
Previously, the court heard that Nowak, a first-year student at the University of Southampton was walking back to his accommodation after drinking to a level that was below the drink-drive limit.
Digwa was in Belmont Road at about 23:30 GMT with the blade in a sheath around his neck.
The court was told the attack was not witnessed, but neighbours heard Nowak say he had been stabbed and was dying.
He attempted to escape by climbing over a fence, leaving a trail of blood behind him.
There's also the question of the problem it would solve. The day to day operations of water companies aren't really the main problems the industry faces, which is far more about sewage spills and net zero capex. Taking the industry's infrastructure into public ownership would do nothing to solve either of those - instead, any investment to solve them would have to come from a constrained Treasury that would cut their budgets in the 8 out of 10 years when it is short of money. And you'd be reliant on some governmental organisation to plan and implement capex. See HS2 for how well getting politicians involved in infrastructure generally works out.
Finally, there's the government finance problem. The water industry needs huge investment, and adding that burden to the government's balance sheet would increase bond yields noticeably, when they are already uncomfortably high. Neither the government nor the taxpayers can be expected to welcome that.
There are good arguments for outsourcing individual operations, provided those are kept under control by an accountable, central and incentivised management. When done well, this can provide real benefits (though when done badly it can mess up the whole system). But that's very different from franchising out all the operations for a few years.
But overall the franchising model, though perhaps theoretically attractive, would cause far more problems than it solved in the water industry.
In cases where the Government is held responsible for the results, it has to take control and it has to do that by taking things in-house. Outsourcing eventually goes wrong
The franchise model has many problems and would be largely unsuitable for water, which is why it's usually been rejected.
To begin with, how long should the franchise be? Water is an industry where things take decades to change, so either you'd have to have a franchise that lasts decades, which rather defeats the point of being able to get rid of them if they underperform, or you'd have a series of short-run incumbents that can't change anything.
And what happens if companies do underperform? In theory, it's easy - sack them and replace them. In practice, there would be relatively few companies with the expertise necessary to do so, so you'd probably be replacing them with another, very similar operation. And if Thames needed to be replaced tomorrow, the demand for qualified staff would inevitably mean that you'd have to re-employ most of the existing staff, so what would be the point?
Also, how do you tell if companies are underperforming anyway? The water industry is extremely complicated, with hundreds of output measures and answerable to, I think, seven different regulators (Ofwat, DWI, EA, the rivers people, etc). Ofwat tries to do this every five years, at huge expense, but overall is not generally regarded to do a very good job. And the uncertainty surrounding such a process would inevitably make franchisees either reluctant to take it on, or only willing to do so at premium rates.
Then there's the problem of contractual complexity. The operating company would need to have a long term contract with the infrastructure company. As you can easily see in the rail industry, these are fantastically complicated documents with endless scope for evasion, misunderstandings and lawsuits. Water is a much more complicated industry than rail, so they would have to be far more complicated even than the rail nightmares.
Related, there's the issue of accountability. When something goes wrong in Thames Water's area of operations today, like a leaky main or a sewage overflow, there's no doubt who caused it and needs to clean it up. With a split between infrastructure and franchised operations, though, who is responsible? There's endless scope for blame games and nothing getting fixed. (cont...)
There's also the question of the problem it would solve. The day to day operations of water companies aren't really the main problems the industry faces, which is far more about sewage spills and net zero capex. Taking the industry's infrastructure into public ownership would do nothing to solve either of those - instead, any investment to solve them would have to come from a constrained Treasury that would cut their budgets in the 8 out of 10 years when it is short of money. And you'd be reliant on some governmental organisation to plan and implement capex. See HS2 for how well getting politicians involved in infrastructure generally works out.
Finally, there's the government finance problem. The water industry needs huge investment, and adding that burden to the government's balance sheet would increase bond yields noticeably, when they are already uncomfortably high. Neither the government nor the taxpayers can be expected to welcome that.
There are good arguments for outsourcing individual operations, provided those are kept under control by an accountable, central and incentivised management. When done well, this can provide real benefits (though when done badly it can mess up the whole system). But that's very different from franchising out all the operations for a few years.
But overall the franchising model, though perhaps theoretically attractive, would cause far more problems than it solved in the water industry.
Water privatisation was, in part, motivated by the need for more investment in water infrastructure. Instead it looks like bills were massively increased and the water companies borrowed to pay dividends. It's hard not to conclude that it failed, and more of the same certainly isn't the answer.
Who do Britons think is the main party of the right in the UK today 43% say Reform (rising to 74% of 2024 Reform voters) 17% say the Tories (40% of 2024 Tories) 6% say Restore (rising to 12% of 2024 Reform voters) 5% say the Liberal Democrats (rising to 19% of Lib Dem voters)
An astonishing story, forget the subject matter (Travellers) - that a lower tier and upper tier council should be looking to sue each other is quite honestly bonkers
"The council" needs to have a unified voice on this, big argument in favour of creation of a (Or two) unitary in Derbyshire no matter which way they decide.
Announcements on councils scheduled for July 2026 apparently...
Vickrum Digwa used a 21cm (8in) blade he said he carried as part of his Sikh faith to kill 18-year-old Henry Nowak, who was walking home from a night out in Southampton on 3 December.
Digwa, 23, told Southampton Crown Court he had acted in self defence, claiming the teenager had used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off.
However, the jury rejected this defence and found him guilty of murder.
Digwa was also found guilty of carrying a knife in public and his mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was found guilty of assisting an offender.
Kaur appeared visibly upset in the dock as the verdict was read out, while Digwa showed little emotion and gazed out into the courtroom.
Sobs could be heard at the back of the public gallery, while Nowak's family let out a sigh and hugged as they left the room.
Judge William Mousley thanked the jury for their "essential service" in what he described as a "particularly difficult case".
He added that he was "impressed by the dignity and respect by the people attending".
Digwa will be sentenced on Monday afternoon at Southampton Crown Court, while his mother will be sentenced on Friday 17 July.
Previously, the court heard that Nowak, a first-year student at the University of Southampton was walking back to his accommodation after drinking to a level that was below the drink-drive limit.
Digwa was in Belmont Road at about 23:30 GMT with the blade in a sheath around his neck.
The court was told the attack was not witnessed, but neighbours heard Nowak say he had been stabbed and was dying.
He attempted to escape by climbing over a fence, leaving a trail of blood behind him.
What the Beeb omit is that Nowak was treated as suspect by the Cops, and they handcuffed him as he was dying.
This case has been causing a bit of a stir among the right wing types on X. The contrast between this case and George Floyd, for instance. I am sure that there is more to come out about the police actions. Actually there is something in that report about this:
"The court heard how Digwa lied to police, telling them he had been attacked but not letting officers know that Nowak had been hurt.
Police initially handcuffed the victim before discovering his fatal injury a short time later.
Robert France, temporary deputy chief constable for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Constabulary, apologised for arresting Nowak in the moments before he died.
He told the BBC: "This was an extremely complex investigation and actually the scene itself was extremely complex when officers arrived.
"They were lied to in the 999 call by Henry's killer, they were lied to as they arrived at the scene and we know that as a result they didn't understand what had happened for several minutes and that is an absolute tragedy."
It looks as though the MIlburn Report will be a damning indictment of failure of successive Governments who have seriously compromised the future propects of a generation.
When I was in local Government, and I confess I was only on the periphery of this, there was a requirement for every 16-18 year old certainly to be either in work, education, training or on some scheme. The Council partnered with a provider and used space at local libraries and youth centres to run the training.
It's always been the way (well, it was when I graduated back in the late Permian) employers are reluctant to take on staff, however well qualified, without experience and you can't get that experience without a job. The public sector did its bit - we took on trainees in a number of the professions and supported them through their qualifications in the sure knowledge once they got their accreditation, they would be off to a much better paid job in the private sector.
There was of course a time when every graduate became a barista but I suspect that's not the case. I worked in betting shops marking the board as was the fashion in the Triassic.
There's a lot of talk about apprenticeships and that has to be the way to go for those less academically gifted but that needs far more from all sectors of industry than seems to be about currently.
The cost of everything, the value of nothing.
Boris wave
Park a problem that had built up before Covid and which Boris palpably ignilored after it.
Regards
You can do apprenticeships in various professions, you always could, engineering via CAD trainee to HND or degree, legal exec to solicitor, accountancy etc, whether the "new" apprenticeships have added anything
Pretty scary numbers if the official figures in a month's time confirm this:
It's very preliminary data, but I think that the region of the UK with the highest fiscal deficit as % of GVA has moved for the first time I've ever known it, to be in England...
..The erosion of the economy of the English Midlands from being a net contributor to the national finances in 2000 to now running a bigger deficit than Greece at the deepest point of its financial crisis is an economic catastrophe and a deep threat to our country's survival. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2059748175947194392
During 2017 one friend of mine, then the organist at Cannock, spoke of his great frustration that politicians talked all about the financial markets in London and not one of them understood that manufacturing was the backbone of the economy of the Midlands.
He was right then and he's right now, but it's probably too late to do much about it.
I used to work at the lighting factory in Cannock. Not there anymore.
Used to employ hundreds.
Manufacturing has been in decline for many years and people in power happy for it to be. Same with hospitality
People in manufacturing say it’s ’leccy prices that have been killing them, the last few years.
Consumers have been protected,
Among other things, it blocks productivity improvement - install machinery, then pay a fortune to run it.
Well why would you even bother ?
Just thrash your existing assets.
High energy pricing certainly is a problem. Less so for a screwdriver facility than a primary manufacturer like a trade moulder or casting company.
Who would set up a manufacturing company in the UK that was energy intensive now unless you’re going to get a lot of cash from HMG.
But there have been other problems too. Govt policy has not been keen to keep key product or commodity production in this country.
My last company was fortunate that it was able to negotiate a corporate deal for electricity. It was still a big chunk of spend. They, foolishly, invested in new end capping machines which use a fair bit of electricity in the process as it’s hot plate welding. All to grow the Business.
The growth never came as the sale price was too high so they had part utilised assets. Cut the price and you’re on the corporate naughty step for too low a margin.
If the new machinery was more energy efficient it could be worth it perhaps. The consumer support was politically expedient stupidity, it did nothing to promote energy efficiency that would have had longterm benefits, just subsidised demand.
We already spend enormous amounts on "apprenticeships" though, do we not?
Now renamed to something else, but raising £4.4 billion per annum:
The Growth and Skills Levy (formerly the Apprenticeship Levy) is expected to raise approximately £4.4 billion for the current financial year. This funding is primarily generated by UK employers with an annual pay bill exceeding £3 million, who contribute 0.5% of their payroll into the scheme. (Google AI answring the question.)
I'm not close enough to it to know whether it is effective, or whether employers have found ways of diverting the money into something else (aiui the mechanism is quite circular).
On electricity prices, I think there needs to be some more flexibility in the market - somehow. We need to stop teh price of cheap renewables being determined by the price of expensive, volatile, gas. SKS has failed to do it, for reasons I cannot fathom.
A mechanism is required for heavy users to avoid the slings and arrows over the long term, and another to let the lower prices of renewables be widely apparent.
There are things we can point to - the freeze on any new rounds of wind projects from 2010 to 2020 being one, but SKS has metaphorically stood in the Farage Firing Range and machine-gunned himself in the head, with Farage needing to do nothing.
Sorry, but once again, this has been comprehensively debunked, so perhaps we can stop with it. Renewables are not cheaper. Nor are they getting cheaper - the strike price on new wind has afaik gone UP because nobody was interested in bidding for the contracts.
Compare electricity prices in Italy and Spain and then tell me that fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables.
We're back to the high speed rail in France and Spain here. I don't need to look at electricity prices in Italy, because we have figures for what the various types of generation cost here and now. And they show that even with gas at an all time high, generating electricity via gas is cheaper than doing so via all forms of wind and all but one form of solar. We have what we have, and unless you have a way to wave a wand and make us Italy, those are the plain facts.
Vickrum Digwa used a 21cm (8in) blade he said he carried as part of his Sikh faith to kill 18-year-old Henry Nowak, who was walking home from a night out in Southampton on 3 December.
Digwa, 23, told Southampton Crown Court he had acted in self defence, claiming the teenager had used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off.
However, the jury rejected this defence and found him guilty of murder.
Digwa was also found guilty of carrying a knife in public and his mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was found guilty of assisting an offender.
Kaur appeared visibly upset in the dock as the verdict was read out, while Digwa showed little emotion and gazed out into the courtroom.
Sobs could be heard at the back of the public gallery, while Nowak's family let out a sigh and hugged as they left the room.
Judge William Mousley thanked the jury for their "essential service" in what he described as a "particularly difficult case".
He added that he was "impressed by the dignity and respect by the people attending".
Digwa will be sentenced on Monday afternoon at Southampton Crown Court, while his mother will be sentenced on Friday 17 July.
Previously, the court heard that Nowak, a first-year student at the University of Southampton was walking back to his accommodation after drinking to a level that was below the drink-drive limit.
Digwa was in Belmont Road at about 23:30 GMT with the blade in a sheath around his neck.
The court was told the attack was not witnessed, but neighbours heard Nowak say he had been stabbed and was dying.
He attempted to escape by climbing over a fence, leaving a trail of blood behind him.
What the Beeb omit is that Nowak was treated as suspect by the Cops, and they handcuffed him as he was dying.
So will the useless Plod who arrested the victim be held accountable for that and the arrest and lack of treatment earlier being a possible contributing factor to his death be investigated ?
'British Museum cancels Jewish cultural event because of fear of protesters. Bottom line: The protestors won and they did not even have to show up.'
I wouldn't underestimate the resentment this kind of thing can provoke. To be fair though the pro Paly types have quite skilfully managed to frame everything around Israeli war crimes. So perhaps they'll let us go back to being a civilised country once the Gazans get justice?
Vickrum Digwa used a 21cm (8in) blade he said he carried as part of his Sikh faith to kill 18-year-old Henry Nowak, who was walking home from a night out in Southampton on 3 December.
Digwa, 23, told Southampton Crown Court he had acted in self defence, claiming the teenager had used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off.
However, the jury rejected this defence and found him guilty of murder.
Digwa was also found guilty of carrying a knife in public and his mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was found guilty of assisting an offender.
Kaur appeared visibly upset in the dock as the verdict was read out, while Digwa showed little emotion and gazed out into the courtroom.
Sobs could be heard at the back of the public gallery, while Nowak's family let out a sigh and hugged as they left the room.
Judge William Mousley thanked the jury for their "essential service" in what he described as a "particularly difficult case".
He added that he was "impressed by the dignity and respect by the people attending".
Digwa will be sentenced on Monday afternoon at Southampton Crown Court, while his mother will be sentenced on Friday 17 July.
Previously, the court heard that Nowak, a first-year student at the University of Southampton was walking back to his accommodation after drinking to a level that was below the drink-drive limit.
Digwa was in Belmont Road at about 23:30 GMT with the blade in a sheath around his neck.
The court was told the attack was not witnessed, but neighbours heard Nowak say he had been stabbed and was dying.
He attempted to escape by climbing over a fence, leaving a trail of blood behind him.
What the Beeb omit is that Nowak was treated as suspect by the Cops, and they handcuffed him as he was dying.
This case has been causing a bit of a stir among the right wing types on X. The contrast between this case and George Floyd, for instance. I am sure that there is more to come out about the police actions. Actually there is something in that report about this:
"The court heard how Digwa lied to police, telling them he had been attacked but not letting officers know that Nowak had been hurt.
Police initially handcuffed the victim before discovering his fatal injury a short time later.
Robert France, temporary deputy chief constable for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Constabulary, apologised for arresting Nowak in the moments before he died.
He told the BBC: "This was an extremely complex investigation and actually the scene itself was extremely complex when officers arrived.
"They were lied to in the 999 call by Henry's killer, they were lied to as they arrived at the scene and we know that as a result they didn't understand what had happened for several minutes and that is an absolute tragedy."
But, as reported, he’d said he’d been stabbed.
A mealy mouthed apology won’t bring him back and won’t atone for what they did.
It looks as though the MIlburn Report will be a damning indictment of failure of successive Governments who have seriously compromised the future propects of a generation.
When I was in local Government, and I confess I was only on the periphery of this, there was a requirement for every 16-18 year old certainly to be either in work, education, training or on some scheme. The Council partnered with a provider and used space at local libraries and youth centres to run the training.
It's always been the way (well, it was when I graduated back in the late Permian) employers are reluctant to take on staff, however well qualified, without experience and you can't get that experience without a job. The public sector did its bit - we took on trainees in a number of the professions and supported them through their qualifications in the sure knowledge once they got their accreditation, they would be off to a much better paid job in the private sector.
There was of course a time when every graduate became a barista but I suspect that's not the case. I worked in betting shops marking the board as was the fashion in the Triassic.
There's a lot of talk about apprenticeships and that has to be the way to go for those less academically gifted but that needs far more from all sectors of industry than seems to be about currently.
The cost of everything, the value of nothing.
Boris wave
Park a problem that had built up before Covid and which Boris palpably ignilored after it.
Regards
You can do apprenticeships in various professions, you always could, engineering via CAD trainee to HND or degree, legal exec to solicitor, accountancy etc, whether the "new" apprenticeships have added anything
Pretty scary numbers if the official figures in a month's time confirm this:
It's very preliminary data, but I think that the region of the UK with the highest fiscal deficit as % of GVA has moved for the first time I've ever known it, to be in England...
..The erosion of the economy of the English Midlands from being a net contributor to the national finances in 2000 to now running a bigger deficit than Greece at the deepest point of its financial crisis is an economic catastrophe and a deep threat to our country's survival. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2059748175947194392
During 2017 one friend of mine, then the organist at Cannock, spoke of his great frustration that politicians talked all about the financial markets in London and not one of them understood that manufacturing was the backbone of the economy of the Midlands.
He was right then and he's right now, but it's probably too late to do much about it.
I used to work at the lighting factory in Cannock. Not there anymore.
Used to employ hundreds.
Manufacturing has been in decline for many years and people in power happy for it to be. Same with hospitality
People in manufacturing say it’s ’leccy prices that have been killing them, the last few years.
Consumers have been protected,
Among other things, it blocks productivity improvement - install machinery, then pay a fortune to run it.
Well why would you even bother ?
Just thrash your existing assets.
High energy pricing certainly is a problem. Less so for a screwdriver facility than a primary manufacturer like a trade moulder or casting company.
Who would set up a manufacturing company in the UK that was energy intensive now unless you’re going to get a lot of cash from HMG.
But there have been other problems too. Govt policy has not been keen to keep key product or commodity production in this country.
My last company was fortunate that it was able to negotiate a corporate deal for electricity. It was still a big chunk of spend. They, foolishly, invested in new end capping machines which use a fair bit of electricity in the process as it’s hot plate welding. All to grow the Business.
The growth never came as the sale price was too high so they had part utilised assets. Cut the price and you’re on the corporate naughty step for too low a margin.
If the new machinery was more energy efficient it could be worth it perhaps. The consumer support was politically expedient stupidity, it did nothing to promote energy efficiency that would have had longterm benefits, just subsidised demand.
We already spend enormous amounts on "apprenticeships" though, do we not?
Now renamed to something else, but raising £4.4 billion per annum:
The Growth and Skills Levy (formerly the Apprenticeship Levy) is expected to raise approximately £4.4 billion for the current financial year. This funding is primarily generated by UK employers with an annual pay bill exceeding £3 million, who contribute 0.5% of their payroll into the scheme. (Google AI answring the question.)
I'm not close enough to it to know whether it is effective, or whether employers have found ways of diverting the money into something else (aiui the mechanism is quite circular).
On electricity prices, I think there needs to be some more flexibility in the market - somehow. We need to stop teh price of cheap renewables being determined by the price of expensive, volatile, gas. SKS has failed to do it, for reasons I cannot fathom.
A mechanism is required for heavy users to avoid the slings and arrows over the long term, and another to let the lower prices of renewables be widely apparent.
There are things we can point to - the freeze on any new rounds of wind projects from 2010 to 2020 being one, but SKS has metaphorically stood in the Farage Firing Range and machine-gunned himself in the head, with Farage needing to do nothing.
Sorry, but once again, this has been comprehensively debunked, so perhaps we can stop with it. Renewables are not cheaper. Nor are they getting cheaper - the strike price on new wind has afaik gone UP because nobody was interested in bidding for the contracts.
The IFS (so a left leaning think tank, but capable of doing sums) did a podcast on the UK's electricity position last week, which should be required listening for all the relevant politicans.
IIRC they made the following key points:
1) Renewables aren't cheaper than gas for generation once you include the system costs of having them on the grid
2) Renewables, particularly offshore wind are getting more, rather than less expensive to install.
3) We're rapidly locking in high electricity prices for a generation via CfD agreements for renewables. This is a one-way bet, and quite probably at the top of the market. The comparison made was big policy decisions made after the 70s oil shocks which assumed an oil price equivalent to ~190 dollars/barrel in today's money. The oil price actually dropped back from those prices quite quickly, and has never reached them since.
4) High electricity prices driving away our industrial base puts the whole system into a doom-loop, as without the big industrial users, the system costs have to be spread over a smaller use base, which increases electricity prices, which drives away industrial users - rinse and repeat until no industrial demand is left.
5)When gas is setting the system price most of the time as supplier of last resort, the artificial ROC costs etc loaded on gas generation are effectively jacking up the electric price system-wide. This is a stupid distortion which hugely inflates the price of electricity, even when only a tiny fraction is being generated by gas.
6)Putting various decarbonisation taxes onto the electric price is insanely dumb. We've had most of the easy wins in decarbonising the grid already. If we want to reduce CO2 emissions, we should stop caring about getting the grid emissions down further for the minute, and focus on getting the electricity prices to a point where it's actually competitive with gas for domestic heating. Levies for things like home insulation schemes that are added onto the unit price of electricity are about the worst possible way to raise the funds in question if you want to promote electrification.
There was more, but fixing most of that lot would improve matters a great deal.
Vickrum Digwa used a 21cm (8in) blade he said he carried as part of his Sikh faith to kill 18-year-old Henry Nowak, who was walking home from a night out in Southampton on 3 December.
Digwa, 23, told Southampton Crown Court he had acted in self defence, claiming the teenager had used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off.
However, the jury rejected this defence and found him guilty of murder.
Digwa was also found guilty of carrying a knife in public and his mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was found guilty of assisting an offender.
Kaur appeared visibly upset in the dock as the verdict was read out, while Digwa showed little emotion and gazed out into the courtroom.
Sobs could be heard at the back of the public gallery, while Nowak's family let out a sigh and hugged as they left the room.
Judge William Mousley thanked the jury for their "essential service" in what he described as a "particularly difficult case".
He added that he was "impressed by the dignity and respect by the people attending".
Digwa will be sentenced on Monday afternoon at Southampton Crown Court, while his mother will be sentenced on Friday 17 July.
Previously, the court heard that Nowak, a first-year student at the University of Southampton was walking back to his accommodation after drinking to a level that was below the drink-drive limit.
Digwa was in Belmont Road at about 23:30 GMT with the blade in a sheath around his neck.
The court was told the attack was not witnessed, but neighbours heard Nowak say he had been stabbed and was dying.
He attempted to escape by climbing over a fence, leaving a trail of blood behind him.
What the Beeb omit is that Nowak was treated as suspect by the Cops, and they handcuffed him as he was dying.
This case has been causing a bit of a stir among the right wing types on X. The contrast between this case and George Floyd, for instance. I am sure that there is more to come out about the police actions. Actually there is something in that report about this:
"The court heard how Digwa lied to police, telling them he had been attacked but not letting officers know that Nowak had been hurt.
Police initially handcuffed the victim before discovering his fatal injury a short time later.
Robert France, temporary deputy chief constable for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Constabulary, apologised for arresting Nowak in the moments before he died.
He told the BBC: "This was an extremely complex investigation and actually the scene itself was extremely complex when officers arrived.
"They were lied to in the 999 call by Henry's killer, they were lied to as they arrived at the scene and we know that as a result they didn't understand what had happened for several minutes and that is an absolute tragedy."
But, as reported, he’d said he’d been stabbed.
A mealy mouthed apology won’t bring him back and won’t atone for what they did.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for the police. I imagine this was a challenging situation and one that was not simple to disentangle. Its also not clear if the poor lad could have been saved, but certainly handcuffing him as a bled out seems like something went badly wrong in the approach.
But to be clear one person and one person alone is responsible for the murder.
'British Museum cancels Jewish cultural event because of fear of protesters. Bottom line: The protestors won and they did not even have to show up.'
I wouldn't underestimate the resentment this kind of thing can provoke. To be fair though the pro Paly types have quite skilfully managed to frame everything around Israeli war crimes. So perhaps they'll let us go back to being a civilised country once the Gazans get justice?
Free speech for people I agree with is as old as time.
'British Museum cancels Jewish cultural event because of fear of protesters. Bottom line: The protestors won and they did not even have to show up.'
I wouldn't underestimate the resentment this kind of thing can provoke. To be fair though the pro Paly types have quite skilfully managed to frame everything around Israeli war crimes. So perhaps they'll let us go back to being a civilised country once the Gazans get justice?
On a similar topic, someone was shouting abuse at Helen Mirren in the street last night, including calling her a "Zionist bitch".
Vickrum Digwa used a 21cm (8in) blade he said he carried as part of his Sikh faith to kill 18-year-old Henry Nowak, who was walking home from a night out in Southampton on 3 December.
Digwa, 23, told Southampton Crown Court he had acted in self defence, claiming the teenager had used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off.
However, the jury rejected this defence and found him guilty of murder.
Digwa was also found guilty of carrying a knife in public and his mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was found guilty of assisting an offender.
Kaur appeared visibly upset in the dock as the verdict was read out, while Digwa showed little emotion and gazed out into the courtroom.
Sobs could be heard at the back of the public gallery, while Nowak's family let out a sigh and hugged as they left the room.
Judge William Mousley thanked the jury for their "essential service" in what he described as a "particularly difficult case".
He added that he was "impressed by the dignity and respect by the people attending".
Digwa will be sentenced on Monday afternoon at Southampton Crown Court, while his mother will be sentenced on Friday 17 July.
Previously, the court heard that Nowak, a first-year student at the University of Southampton was walking back to his accommodation after drinking to a level that was below the drink-drive limit.
Digwa was in Belmont Road at about 23:30 GMT with the blade in a sheath around his neck.
The court was told the attack was not witnessed, but neighbours heard Nowak say he had been stabbed and was dying.
He attempted to escape by climbing over a fence, leaving a trail of blood behind him.
What the Beeb omit is that Nowak was treated as suspect by the Cops, and they handcuffed him as he was dying.
So will the useless Plod who arrested the victim be held accountable for that and the arrest and lack of treatment earlier being a possible contributing factor to his death be investigated ?
I’d not bet on it.
The bodycam footage should come out after Monday as the proceedings re Digwa/Nowak are "not active" at that point.
'British Museum cancels Jewish cultural event because of fear of protesters. Bottom line: The protestors won and they did not even have to show up.'
I wouldn't underestimate the resentment this kind of thing can provoke. To be fair though the pro Paly types have quite skilfully managed to frame everything around Israeli war crimes. So perhaps they'll let us go back to being a civilised country once the Gazans get justice?
On a similar topic, someone was shouting abuse at Helen Mirren in the street last night, including calling her a "Zionist bitch".
'British Museum cancels Jewish cultural event because of fear of protesters. Bottom line: The protestors won and they did not even have to show up.'
I wouldn't underestimate the resentment this kind of thing can provoke. To be fair though the pro Paly types have quite skilfully managed to frame everything around Israeli war crimes. So perhaps they'll let us go back to being a civilised country once the Gazans get justice?
On a similar topic, someone was shouting abuse at Helen Mirren in the street last night, including calling her a "Zionist bitch".
Keep up William, there’s already been a spasm of outrage over this on this very page.
I am sure the story grows in socio-politocal stature every time it is posted with a several hour gap by a PB right winger. Expect the murderous Sikh to get several outings before sundown too.
There's also the question of the problem it would solve. The day to day operations of water companies aren't really the main problems the industry faces, which is far more about sewage spills and net zero capex. Taking the industry's infrastructure into public ownership would do nothing to solve either of those - instead, any investment to solve them would have to come from a constrained Treasury that would cut their budgets in the 8 out of 10 years when it is short of money. And you'd be reliant on some governmental organisation to plan and implement capex. See HS2 for how well getting politicians involved in infrastructure generally works out.
Finally, there's the government finance problem. The water industry needs huge investment, and adding that burden to the government's balance sheet would increase bond yields noticeably, when they are already uncomfortably high. Neither the government nor the taxpayers can be expected to welcome that.
There are good arguments for outsourcing individual operations, provided those are kept under control by an accountable, central and incentivised management. When done well, this can provide real benefits (though when done badly it can mess up the whole system). But that's very different from franchising out all the operations for a few years.
But overall the franchising model, though perhaps theoretically attractive, would cause far more problems than it solved in the water industry.
The problem it solves is that the private owners extracted dividends and loaded companies with debt. This is solved by not having the company be in private ownership.
'British Museum cancels Jewish cultural event because of fear of protesters. Bottom line: The protestors won and they did not even have to show up.'
I wouldn't underestimate the resentment this kind of thing can provoke. To be fair though the pro Paly types have quite skilfully managed to frame everything around Israeli war crimes. So perhaps they'll let us go back to being a civilised country once the Gazans get justice?
On a similar topic, someone was shouting abuse at Helen Mirren in the street last night, including calling her a "Zionist bitch".
Keep up William, there’s already been a spasm of outrage over this on this very page.
I am sure the story grows in socio-politocal stature every time it is posted with a several hour gap by a PB right winger. Expect the murderous Sikh to get several outings before sundown too.
The Be Kind crowd in action with some anti-semitism....
Dame Helen Mirren has been harassed in the street by a pro-Palestine activist calling her an “evil Zionist b----”.
Footage on social media shows the Oscar-winning actress, 80, being accosted as she walked along the street in London with her husband, director Taylor Hackford. In the video, Dame Helen can be seen initially greeting the man with a smile and asking if he is OK as he approaches the couple while filming.
While I deplore the moronic boorishness, afaik Mirren isn’t Jewish. Can you be antisemitic towards a non Semite?
Well she has claimed some distant Jewish lineage.
Also, if I stood in the street targetting people based on the fact they had been to BLM or Stand up Racism type event, throwing in the n word or p word, regardless of colour or creed of those being shouted at, I think most people would think I was a massive racist.
If I recall correctly, there have been cases of fuckwits trying to be racist to Muslims, but actually attacking Sikhs (and other groups). I *believe* that such people have been convicted for racism offences (and racially aggravated offences) for doing this.
'British Museum cancels Jewish cultural event because of fear of protesters. Bottom line: The protestors won and they did not even have to show up.'
I wouldn't underestimate the resentment this kind of thing can provoke. To be fair though the pro Paly types have quite skilfully managed to frame everything around Israeli war crimes. So perhaps they'll let us go back to being a civilised country once the Gazans get justice?
On a similar topic, someone was shouting abuse at Helen Mirren in the street last night, including calling her a "Zionist bitch".
Keep up William, there’s already been a spasm of outrage over this on this very page.
I am sure the story grows in socio-politocal stature every time it is posted with a several hour gap by a PB right winger. Expect the murderous Sikh to get several outings before sundown too.
You're defending the Sikh, presumably?
No, not at all. And you know that to be the case. I am suggesting that PBers like a story that benefits their particular political or socio- political agenda. We don't see too much posting when the criminals don't have an ethnic interest narrative.
So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?
Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
Leftwards or rightwards?
I can't tell any more.
Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.
* Introduce PR (majority of public in favour) * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour) * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing) * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.
In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control
Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.
I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well. If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working. It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.
I think it's a good model.
EDIT: It looks as if Horse and I are in agreement on this.
I think the distinction is whether the supervisory body believes that strong regulation is necessary to the extent to maintain support for it.
There is an analogy with corporate outsourcing, and the contrast between just letting it go, or retaining enough in house expertise such that the outsourcing supplier is kept on their toes.
Keeping it in house would be vital to retain government expertise - or you're just recreating a similar situation to the current one with the regulator.
You can use contractors, of course, but a "franchise" is just asking for problems.
You do have to wonder on recent polls that Burnham may well fail to win Makerfield
I don't think so. Burnham has problems[1] but he has the great advantages of i) being a local hero and ii) Restore is crippling Reform. So I still think he will win. https://www.survation.com/makerfield-by-election-poll/
[1] He has already tried and failed, he wants to be liked, he doesn't like arguments, and arguably he's a coward. These are not qualities we need in a PM and I don't see him facing down Trump or Putin or Xi. Or even the PM of Belgium, tbh.
There's also the question of the problem it would solve. The day to day operations of water companies aren't really the main problems the industry faces, which is far more about sewage spills and net zero capex. Taking the industry's infrastructure into public ownership would do nothing to solve either of those - instead, any investment to solve them would have to come from a constrained Treasury that would cut their budgets in the 8 out of 10 years when it is short of money. And you'd be reliant on some governmental organisation to plan and implement capex. See HS2 for how well getting politicians involved in infrastructure generally works out...
The money comes from the same source in the end, the bill payers being the same population as taxpayers.
Another point about a regulated privatised utility monopoly is that you're still relying on government to plan and implement capex, since we know what happens when Thames's owners were given a free hand.
Nationalisation isn't a panacea, but it does at least rule out an entire class of problems associated with private ownership without creating new problems which don't already exist.
A utility monopoly which customers have no choice but to use (water is possibly unique in its complete lack of competition, and captive customers) has no place in the private sector.
So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?
Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
Leftwards or rightwards?
I can't tell any more.
Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.
* Introduce PR (majority of public in favour) * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour) * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing) * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.
In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control
Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.
I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well. If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working. It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.
I think it's a good model.
EDIT: It looks as if Horse and I are in agreement on this.
I think the distinction is whether the supervisory body believes that strong regulation is necessary to the extent to maintain support for it.
There is an analogy with corporate outsourcing, and the contrast between just letting it go, or retaining enough in house expertise such that the outsourcing supplier is kept on their toes.
Keeping it in house would be vital to retain government expertise - or you're just recreating a similar situation to the current one with the regulator.
You can use contractors, of course, but a "franchise" is just asking for problems.
The Post Office suggests that merely being owned by the government doesn’t automatically fix the problem
Nor do the numerous NHS scandals.
What is required is active regulation. And management whose first concern is not (im)plausible deniability.
You do have to wonder on recent polls that Burnham may well fail to win Makerfield
I don't think so. Burnham has problems[1] but he has the great advantages of i) being a local hero and ii) Restore is crippling Reform. So I still think he will win. https://www.survation.com/makerfield-by-election-poll/
[1] He has already tried and failed, he wants to be liked, he doesn't like arguments, and arguably he's a coward. These are not qualities we need in a PM and I don't see him facing down Trump or Putin or Xi. Or even the PM of Belgium, tbh.
No, he's a bit s***, but like Johnson, Burnham does have a charisma that I can't put my finger on. Johnson was a bit s*** too.
You do have to wonder on recent polls that Burnham may well fail to win Makerfield
I don't think so. Burnham has problems[1] but he has the great advantages of i) being a local hero and ii) Restore is crippling Reform. So I still think he will win. https://www.survation.com/makerfield-by-election-poll/
[1] He has already tried and failed, he wants to be liked, he doesn't like arguments, and arguably he's a coward. These are not qualities we need in a PM and I don't see him facing down Trump or Putin or Xi. Or even the PM of Belgium, tbh.
No, he's a bit s***, but like Johnson, Burnham does have a charisma that I can't put my finger on. Johnson was a bit s*** too.
Burnham is merely Starmer with mascara and a skimpy Everton kit.
So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?
Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
Leftwards or rightwards?
I can't tell any more.
Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.
* Introduce PR (majority of public in favour) * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour) * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing) * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.
In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control
Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.
I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well. If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working. It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.
I think it's a good model.
EDIT: It looks as if Horse and I are in agreement on this.
I think the distinction is whether the supervisory body believes that strong regulation is necessary to the extent to maintain support for it.
There is an analogy with corporate outsourcing, and the contrast between just letting it go, or retaining enough in house expertise such that the outsourcing supplier is kept on their toes.
Keeping it in house would be vital to retain government expertise - or you're just recreating a similar situation to the current one with the regulator.
You can use contractors, of course, but a "franchise" is just asking for problems.
The Post Office suggests that merely being owned by the government doesn’t automatically fix the problem
Nor do the numerous NHS scandals.
What is required is active regulation. And management whose first concern is not (im)plausible deniability.
As I said, government ownership isn't a panacea. But if government can't run a water company then it's hard to see how it can effectively regulate either.
Public ownership of Thames might eventually also improve the regulation of the rest of the industry, by provide a route to breaking the current cosy relationship between industry and regulator ?
Vickrum Digwa used a 21cm (8in) blade he said he carried as part of his Sikh faith to kill 18-year-old Henry Nowak, who was walking home from a night out in Southampton on 3 December.
Digwa, 23, told Southampton Crown Court he had acted in self defence, claiming the teenager had used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off.
However, the jury rejected this defence and found him guilty of murder.
Digwa was also found guilty of carrying a knife in public and his mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was found guilty of assisting an offender.
Kaur appeared visibly upset in the dock as the verdict was read out, while Digwa showed little emotion and gazed out into the courtroom.
Sobs could be heard at the back of the public gallery, while Nowak's family let out a sigh and hugged as they left the room.
Judge William Mousley thanked the jury for their "essential service" in what he described as a "particularly difficult case".
He added that he was "impressed by the dignity and respect by the people attending".
Digwa will be sentenced on Monday afternoon at Southampton Crown Court, while his mother will be sentenced on Friday 17 July.
Previously, the court heard that Nowak, a first-year student at the University of Southampton was walking back to his accommodation after drinking to a level that was below the drink-drive limit.
Digwa was in Belmont Road at about 23:30 GMT with the blade in a sheath around his neck.
The court was told the attack was not witnessed, but neighbours heard Nowak say he had been stabbed and was dying.
He attempted to escape by climbing over a fence, leaving a trail of blood behind him.
What the Beeb omit is that Nowak was treated as suspect by the Cops, and they handcuffed him as he was dying.
This case has been causing a bit of a stir among the right wing types on X. The contrast between this case and George Floyd, for instance. I am sure that there is more to come out about the police actions. Actually there is something in that report about this:
"The court heard how Digwa lied to police, telling them he had been attacked but not letting officers know that Nowak had been hurt.
Police initially handcuffed the victim before discovering his fatal injury a short time later.
Robert France, temporary deputy chief constable for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Constabulary, apologised for arresting Nowak in the moments before he died.
He told the BBC: "This was an extremely complex investigation and actually the scene itself was extremely complex when officers arrived.
"They were lied to in the 999 call by Henry's killer, they were lied to as they arrived at the scene and we know that as a result they didn't understand what had happened for several minutes and that is an absolute tragedy."
But, as reported, he’d said he’d been stabbed.
A mealy mouthed apology won’t bring him back and won’t atone for what they did.
Plod were attending on the 999 call from the killer - where he told lies. So they turned up believing that Nowak was the aggressor and Digwa the victim. It took them time to disentangle this. I'm sure more will come out.
'British Museum cancels Jewish cultural event because of fear of protesters. Bottom line: The protestors won and they did not even have to show up.'
I wouldn't underestimate the resentment this kind of thing can provoke. To be fair though the pro Paly types have quite skilfully managed to frame everything around Israeli war crimes. So perhaps they'll let us go back to being a civilised country once the Gazans get justice?
On a similar topic, someone was shouting abuse at Helen Mirren in the street last night, including calling her a "Zionist bitch".
Keep up William, there’s already been a spasm of outrage over this on this very page.
I am sure the story grows in socio-politocal stature every time it is posted with a several hour gap by a PB right winger. Expect the murderous Sikh to get several outings before sundown too.
You're defending the Sikh, presumably?
No, not at all. And you know that to be the case. I am suggesting that PBers like a story that benefits their particular political or socio- political agenda. We don't see too much posting when the criminals don't have an ethnic interest narrative.
This story has a classic man bites dog element for sure. The implication of some is that the plod assumed a racist crime and got it wrong. We shall see.
It looks as though the MIlburn Report will be a damning indictment of failure of successive Governments who have seriously compromised the future propects of a generation.
When I was in local Government, and I confess I was only on the periphery of this, there was a requirement for every 16-18 year old certainly to be either in work, education, training or on some scheme. The Council partnered with a provider and used space at local libraries and youth centres to run the training.
It's always been the way (well, it was when I graduated back in the late Permian) employers are reluctant to take on staff, however well qualified, without experience and you can't get that experience without a job. The public sector did its bit - we took on trainees in a number of the professions and supported them through their qualifications in the sure knowledge once they got their accreditation, they would be off to a much better paid job in the private sector.
There was of course a time when every graduate became a barista but I suspect that's not the case. I worked in betting shops marking the board as was the fashion in the Triassic.
There's a lot of talk about apprenticeships and that has to be the way to go for those less academically gifted but that needs far more from all sectors of industry than seems to be about currently.
The cost of everything, the value of nothing.
Boris wave
Park a problem that had built up before Covid and which Boris palpably ignilored after it.
Regards
You can do apprenticeships in various professions, you always could, engineering via CAD trainee to HND or degree, legal exec to solicitor, accountancy etc, whether the "new" apprenticeships have added anything
Pretty scary numbers if the official figures in a month's time confirm this:
It's very preliminary data, but I think that the region of the UK with the highest fiscal deficit as % of GVA has moved for the first time I've ever known it, to be in England...
..The erosion of the economy of the English Midlands from being a net contributor to the national finances in 2000 to now running a bigger deficit than Greece at the deepest point of its financial crisis is an economic catastrophe and a deep threat to our country's survival. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2059748175947194392
During 2017 one friend of mine, then the organist at Cannock, spoke of his great frustration that politicians talked all about the financial markets in London and not one of them understood that manufacturing was the backbone of the economy of the Midlands.
He was right then and he's right now, but it's probably too late to do much about it.
I used to work at the lighting factory in Cannock. Not there anymore.
Used to employ hundreds.
Manufacturing has been in decline for many years and people in power happy for it to be. Same with hospitality
People in manufacturing say it’s ’leccy prices that have been killing them, the last few years.
Consumers have been protected,
Among other things, it blocks productivity improvement - install machinery, then pay a fortune to run it.
Well why would you even bother ?
Just thrash your existing assets.
High energy pricing certainly is a problem. Less so for a screwdriver facility than a primary manufacturer like a trade moulder or casting company.
Who would set up a manufacturing company in the UK that was energy intensive now unless you’re going to get a lot of cash from HMG.
But there have been other problems too. Govt policy has not been keen to keep key product or commodity production in this country.
My last company was fortunate that it was able to negotiate a corporate deal for electricity. It was still a big chunk of spend. They, foolishly, invested in new end capping machines which use a fair bit of electricity in the process as it’s hot plate welding. All to grow the Business.
The growth never came as the sale price was too high so they had part utilised assets. Cut the price and you’re on the corporate naughty step for too low a margin.
If the new machinery was more energy efficient it could be worth it perhaps. The consumer support was politically expedient stupidity, it did nothing to promote energy efficiency that would have had longterm benefits, just subsidised demand.
We already spend enormous amounts on "apprenticeships" though, do we not?
Now renamed to something else, but raising £4.4 billion per annum:
The Growth and Skills Levy (formerly the Apprenticeship Levy) is expected to raise approximately £4.4 billion for the current financial year. This funding is primarily generated by UK employers with an annual pay bill exceeding £3 million, who contribute 0.5% of their payroll into the scheme. (Google AI answring the question.)
I'm not close enough to it to know whether it is effective, or whether employers have found ways of diverting the money into something else (aiui the mechanism is quite circular).
On electricity prices, I think there needs to be some more flexibility in the market - somehow. We need to stop teh price of cheap renewables being determined by the price of expensive, volatile, gas. SKS has failed to do it, for reasons I cannot fathom.
A mechanism is required for heavy users to avoid the slings and arrows over the long term, and another to let the lower prices of renewables be widely apparent.
There are things we can point to - the freeze on any new rounds of wind projects from 2010 to 2020 being one, but SKS has metaphorically stood in the Farage Firing Range and machine-gunned himself in the head, with Farage needing to do nothing.
Sorry, but once again, this has been comprehensively debunked, so perhaps we can stop with it. Renewables are not cheaper. Nor are they getting cheaper - the strike price on new wind has afaik gone UP because nobody was interested in bidding for the contracts.
Compare electricity prices in Italy and Spain and then tell me that fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables.
We're back to the high speed rail in France and Spain here. I don't need to look at electricity prices in Italy, because we have figures for what the various types of generation cost here and now. And they show that even with gas at an all time high, generating electricity via gas is cheaper than doing so via all forms of wind and all but one form of solar. We have what we have, and unless you have a way to wave a wand and make us Italy, those are the plain facts.
Um, if we were like Italy we would have even higher prices, because of an even greater reliance on gas. That is a plain fact, which you are ignorant of.
Reform UK Makerfield candidate Robert Kenyon previously blamed Hillary Clinton for the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing
"With a smile and lipstick... she created ISIS with her foreign policy... had she stayed out of Libya, the bombing wouldn’t have happened" In a social media post, he wrote: "The UK and Europe have witnessed terror attacks as a result of getting rid of Hussein and Gaddafi, we would be safe to walk the Christmas markets, to walk around London and so on had we left them to it"
Are we sure the Reform and original Green candidate didn't get mixed up? The Green one wanted re-migration, the Reform one doesn't like Brexit and is on the Corbyn leftie portion who blame US foreign for every bad thing.
The Fukkers have outdone themselves here. This van driving moron is special even by their spectacular standards. Big Roop seems to have been much more savvy with his choice of candidate. The truly depressing thing for the tories is that nobody cares enough to check what their candidate has said and done.
This surprises me slightly - I know you helped get rid of Saddam but I didn't realise you were so on board ideologically, or with getting rid of Gadaffi.
I thought it was widely acknowledged that Iraq and Libya had created the blowback he describes. He may have moderated his tone if he'd realised he might one day be seeking high office.
Vickrum Digwa used a 21cm (8in) blade he said he carried as part of his Sikh faith to kill 18-year-old Henry Nowak, who was walking home from a night out in Southampton on 3 December.
Digwa, 23, told Southampton Crown Court he had acted in self defence, claiming the teenager had used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off.
However, the jury rejected this defence and found him guilty of murder.
Digwa was also found guilty of carrying a knife in public and his mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was found guilty of assisting an offender.
Kaur appeared visibly upset in the dock as the verdict was read out, while Digwa showed little emotion and gazed out into the courtroom.
Sobs could be heard at the back of the public gallery, while Nowak's family let out a sigh and hugged as they left the room.
Judge William Mousley thanked the jury for their "essential service" in what he described as a "particularly difficult case".
He added that he was "impressed by the dignity and respect by the people attending".
Digwa will be sentenced on Monday afternoon at Southampton Crown Court, while his mother will be sentenced on Friday 17 July.
Previously, the court heard that Nowak, a first-year student at the University of Southampton was walking back to his accommodation after drinking to a level that was below the drink-drive limit.
Digwa was in Belmont Road at about 23:30 GMT with the blade in a sheath around his neck.
The court was told the attack was not witnessed, but neighbours heard Nowak say he had been stabbed and was dying.
He attempted to escape by climbing over a fence, leaving a trail of blood behind him.
What the Beeb omit is that Nowak was treated as suspect by the Cops, and they handcuffed him as he was dying.
This case has been causing a bit of a stir among the right wing types on X. The contrast between this case and George Floyd, for instance. I am sure that there is more to come out about the police actions. Actually there is something in that report about this:
"The court heard how Digwa lied to police, telling them he had been attacked but not letting officers know that Nowak had been hurt.
Police initially handcuffed the victim before discovering his fatal injury a short time later.
Robert France, temporary deputy chief constable for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Constabulary, apologised for arresting Nowak in the moments before he died.
He told the BBC: "This was an extremely complex investigation and actually the scene itself was extremely complex when officers arrived.
"They were lied to in the 999 call by Henry's killer, they were lied to as they arrived at the scene and we know that as a result they didn't understand what had happened for several minutes and that is an absolute tragedy."
But, as reported, he’d said he’d been stabbed.
A mealy mouthed apology won’t bring him back and won’t atone for what they did.
Plod were attending on the 999 call from the killer - where he told lies. So they turned up believing that Nowak was the aggressor and Digwa the victim. It took them time to disentangle this. I'm sure more will come out.
On the face if it, you would think that the quantities of blood leaking from the victim would be a clue, but I wasn't there, so we'll see when there is more clear evidence of what happened and when.
Comments
Also, if I stood in the street targetting people based on the fact they had been to BLM or Stand up Racism type event, throwing in the n word or p word, regardless of colour or creed of those being shouted at, I think most people would think I was a massive racist.
Just not the objective.
The difference is that they're in control of the manufacturing for the new energy systems, and that they also recognise the importance of energy abundancy. In Britain we've become obsessed with the idea that energy needs to be rationed. You can reach net zero with energy abundancy. The problem isn't with net zero. The problem is with the specific idea of using energy scarcity to try to get there (which it never could).
Again.
Aside from all the Israeli and non Israeli Jews who call themselves proud Zionists of course.
"With a smile and lipstick... she created ISIS with her foreign policy... had she stayed out of Libya, the bombing wouldn’t have happened" In a social media post, he wrote: "The UK and Europe have witnessed terror attacks as a result of getting rid of Hussein and Gaddafi, we would be safe to walk the Christmas markets, to walk around London and so on had we left them to it"
Are we sure the Reform and original Green candidate didn't get mixed up? The Green one wanted re-migration, the Reform one doesn't like Brexit and is on the Corbyn leftie portion who blame US foreign for every bad thing.
I'd hypothesize that it was probably more popular with them than those who did it.
In cases where the Government is held responsible for the results, it has to take control and it has to do that by taking things in-house. Outsourcing eventually goes wrong
PRC produces vast amounts of emissions and is using coal at a prodigious rate.
PRC is moving towards green energy at speed.
Those most prominent would perhaps be Kingsway International Christian Centre (KICC), around 10-12k congregants, who had a scandal around 2009, where (aiui) they gave a lot of church money to an unqualified "investment adviser" to invest, and lost several million. They had earlier governance problems, where the Pastor was both an employee and a trustee.
KICC are an offshoot of a Nigerian group, are in majority a Nigerian-origin congregation, and reflect the USA type structure (eg Paula White) - single church as an independent organisation, with limited external checks and balances. The Charity Commission did what they did, but it is the norm to have greater checks and balances, both cultural and organisational.
My very rough theory of the prosperity gospel is that it is a sociological phenomenon, and occurs where people are either wealthy enough to need a theology to help them justify their position in the face of Christian teaching, or poor enough for it to give a dream of a better life, or have a view that they are one or the other.
Given events in the Middle East you might expect this not to be repeated this year, as coal use may likely increase to replace some gas, but we're still at the cusp of a major change. All the, "what about China?" talking points will start to look very silly.
There is also the case of non-Jewish men married to Jewish women, who (matrilinearly) will give birth to Jewish children fathered by those non-Jewish men. Keir Starmer is such a case. Whilst not Jewish, you could make a case for saying he is Jew-ish, to steal a David Baddiel joke.
I appreciate this was not the point you were making, but I just thought I'd point it out.
The electorate at large might feel differently.
When there was a rainbow coalition in Worcestershire 2 weeks ago, she suspended the Council Leader from the Conservative Party.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgpyxw7l5no
AFAICS the issue was working with Greens, but she needs some clear guidelines or it could be a mess.
Some policies really are “do this & everyone ends up better off” - the problem is that the system (for good reasons) has enormous inertia & change is politically difficult. The way the OBR accounts for tax revenue has become a huge barrier to any real change in the system - they are simultaneously barred from taking into account any economic growth from abandoning stupid taxes whilst also forced to believe that the current government will definitely raise taxes in the final year of this Parliament. Huge incentive for any Chancellor to promise future tax rises that won’t happen in the Budget instead of actually fixing anything.
There is an analogy with corporate outsourcing, and the contrast between just letting it go, or retaining enough in house expertise such that the outsourcing supplier is kept on their toes.
An interview with a reporter who has been digging into the emails, and identified (allegedly!) another of his procurers, who has links to a figure still in the Trump administration.
(30 minute video - so good for wallpaper).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZQt-0lOLKE
Have a good afternoon, all.
Digwa, 23, told Southampton Crown Court he had acted in self defence, claiming the teenager had used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off.
However, the jury rejected this defence and found him guilty of murder.
Digwa was also found guilty of carrying a knife in public and his mother, Kiran Kaur, 53, was found guilty of assisting an offender.
Kaur appeared visibly upset in the dock as the verdict was read out, while Digwa showed little emotion and gazed out into the courtroom.
Sobs could be heard at the back of the public gallery, while Nowak's family let out a sigh and hugged as they left the room.
Judge William Mousley thanked the jury for their "essential service" in what he described as a "particularly difficult case".
He added that he was "impressed by the dignity and respect by the people attending".
Digwa will be sentenced on Monday afternoon at Southampton Crown Court, while his mother will be sentenced on Friday 17 July.
Previously, the court heard that Nowak, a first-year student at the University of Southampton was walking back to his accommodation after drinking to a level that was below the drink-drive limit.
Digwa was in Belmont Road at about 23:30 GMT with the blade in a sheath around his neck.
The court was told the attack was not witnessed, but neighbours heard Nowak say he had been stabbed and was dying.
He attempted to escape by climbing over a fence, leaving a trail of blood behind him.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c775y853ydxo
What the Beeb omit is that Nowak was treated as suspect by the Cops, and they handcuffed him as he was dying.
There's also the question of the problem it would solve. The day to day operations of water companies aren't really the main problems the industry faces, which is far more about sewage spills and net zero capex. Taking the industry's infrastructure into public ownership would do nothing to solve either of those - instead, any investment to solve them would have to come from a constrained Treasury that would cut their budgets in the 8 out of 10 years when it is short of money. And you'd be reliant on some governmental organisation to plan and implement capex. See HS2 for how well getting politicians involved in infrastructure generally works out.
Finally, there's the government finance problem. The water industry needs huge investment, and adding that burden to the government's balance sheet would increase bond yields noticeably, when they are already uncomfortably high. Neither the government nor the taxpayers can be expected to welcome that.
There are good arguments for outsourcing individual operations, provided those are kept under control by an accountable, central and incentivised management. When done well, this can provide real benefits (though when done badly it can mess up the whole system). But that's very different from franchising out all the operations for a few years.
But overall the franchising model, though perhaps theoretically attractive, would cause far more problems than it solved in the water industry.
To begin with, how long should the franchise be? Water is an industry where things take decades to change, so either you'd have to have a franchise that lasts decades, which rather defeats the point of being able to get rid of them if they underperform, or you'd have a series of short-run incumbents that can't change anything.
And what happens if companies do underperform? In theory, it's easy - sack them and replace them. In practice, there would be relatively few companies with the expertise necessary to do so, so you'd probably be replacing them with another, very similar operation. And if Thames needed to be replaced tomorrow, the demand for qualified staff would inevitably mean that you'd have to re-employ most of the existing staff, so what would be the point?
Also, how do you tell if companies are underperforming anyway? The water industry is extremely complicated, with hundreds of output measures and answerable to, I think, seven different regulators (Ofwat, DWI, EA, the rivers people, etc). Ofwat tries to do this every five years, at huge expense, but overall is not generally regarded to do a very good job. And the uncertainty surrounding such a process would inevitably make franchisees either reluctant to take it on, or only willing to do so at premium rates.
Then there's the problem of contractual complexity. The operating company would need to have a long term contract with the infrastructure company. As you can easily see in the rail industry, these are fantastically complicated documents with endless scope for evasion, misunderstandings and lawsuits. Water is a much more complicated industry than rail, so they would have to be far more complicated even than the rail nightmares.
Related, there's the issue of accountability. When something goes wrong in Thames Water's area of operations today, like a leaky main or a sewage overflow, there's no doubt who caused it and needs to clean it up. With a split between infrastructure and franchised operations, though, who is responsible? There's endless scope for blame games and nothing getting fixed. (cont...)
Who do Britons think is the main party of the right in the UK today
43% say Reform (rising to 74% of 2024 Reform voters)
17% say the Tories (40% of 2024 Tories)
6% say Restore (rising to 12% of 2024 Reform voters)
5% say the Liberal Democrats (rising to 19% of Lib Dem voters)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93x2k18gveo
"The council" needs to have a unified voice on this, big argument in favour of creation of a (Or two) unitary in Derbyshire no matter which way they decide.
Announcements on councils scheduled for July 2026 apparently...
"The court heard how Digwa lied to police, telling them he had been attacked but not letting officers know that Nowak had been hurt.
Police initially handcuffed the victim before discovering his fatal injury a short time later.
Robert France, temporary deputy chief constable for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Constabulary, apologised for arresting Nowak in the moments before he died.
He told the BBC: "This was an extremely complex investigation and actually the scene itself was extremely complex when officers arrived.
"They were lied to in the 999 call by Henry's killer, they were lied to as they arrived at the scene and we know that as a result they didn't understand what had happened for several minutes and that is an absolute tragedy."
I’d not bet on it.
"Sweden bans cousin marriage and other marriages between close relatives, law takes effect July 1, 2026"
https://x.com/deborahlipstadt/status/2059796300296573253
'British Museum cancels Jewish cultural event because of fear of protesters. Bottom line: The protestors won and they did not even have to show up.'
I wouldn't underestimate the resentment this kind of thing can provoke. To be fair though the pro Paly types have quite skilfully managed to frame everything around Israeli war crimes. So perhaps they'll let us go back to being a civilised country once the Gazans get justice?
A mealy mouthed apology won’t bring him back and won’t atone for what they did.
IIRC they made the following key points:
1) Renewables aren't cheaper than gas for generation once you include the system costs of having them on the grid
2) Renewables, particularly offshore wind are getting more, rather than less expensive to install.
3) We're rapidly locking in high electricity prices for a generation via CfD agreements for renewables. This is a one-way bet, and quite probably at the top of the market. The comparison made was big policy decisions made after the 70s oil shocks which assumed an oil price equivalent to ~190 dollars/barrel in today's money. The oil price actually dropped back from those prices quite quickly, and has never reached them since.
4) High electricity prices driving away our industrial base puts the whole system into a doom-loop, as without the big industrial users, the system costs have to be spread over a smaller use base, which increases electricity prices, which drives away industrial users - rinse and repeat until no industrial demand is left.
5)When gas is setting the system price most of the time as supplier of last resort, the artificial ROC costs etc loaded on gas generation are effectively jacking up the electric price system-wide. This is a stupid distortion which hugely inflates the price of electricity, even when only a tiny fraction is being generated by gas.
6)Putting various decarbonisation taxes onto the electric price is insanely dumb. We've had most of the easy wins in decarbonising the grid already. If we want to reduce CO2 emissions, we should stop caring about getting the grid emissions down further for the minute, and focus on getting the electricity prices to a point where it's actually competitive with gas for domestic heating. Levies for things like home insulation schemes that are added onto the unit price of electricity are about the worst possible way to raise the funds in question if you want to promote electrification.
There was more, but fixing most of that lot would improve matters a great deal.
But to be clear one person and one person alone is responsible for the murder.
https://x.com/CrimeLdn/status/2059920113382408340
(quota)
Westminster Voting Intention:
RFM: 25% (-1)
GRN: 19% (+2)
CON: 18% (+1)
LAB: 16% (-1)
LDM: 12% (-1)
SNP: 3% (=)
Via @FindoutnowUK, 27 May.
Changes w/ 20 May.
@PB_Lawyers?
You can use contractors, of course, but a "franchise" is just asking for problems.
You do have to wonder on recent polls that Burnham may well fail to win Makerfield
[1] He has already tried and failed, he wants to be liked, he doesn't like arguments, and arguably he's a coward. These are not qualities we need in a PM and I don't see him facing down Trump or Putin or Xi. Or even the PM of Belgium, tbh.
Another point about a regulated privatised utility monopoly is that you're still relying on government to plan and implement capex, since we know what happens when Thames's owners were given a free hand.
Nationalisation isn't a panacea, but it does at least rule out an entire class of problems associated with private ownership without creating new problems which don't already exist.
A utility monopoly which customers have no choice but to use (water is possibly unique in its complete lack of competition, and captive customers) has no place in the private sector.
Nor do the numerous NHS scandals.
What is required is active regulation. And management whose first concern is not (im)plausible deniability.
NEW THREAD
Nick Tyrone going down a similar story arc as Williamglenn.
However the polls are not the best for labour and it could be quite close
Losing surely cannot be contemplated by labour, not least the utter chaos that would surely follow
But if government can't run a water company then it's hard to see how it can effectively regulate either.
Public ownership of Thames might eventually also improve the regulation of the rest of the industry, by provide a route to breaking the current cosy relationship between industry and regulator ?
I thought it was widely acknowledged that Iraq and Libya had created the blowback he describes. He may have moderated his tone if he'd realised he might one day be seeking high office.