|
Post by graham on Aug 15, 2022 23:46:26 GMT
The ration books never got to be issued over the winter of 1973/74 - though we ended up with the 3 Day week under Ted Heath. Well I still have my ration book. I was looking forward to it coming into force as I had a 50cc motorbike and had coupons for a 2 litre car! 🤣 The 3-day week was also brilliant because I stayed on the same salary. As a matter of fact I asked to stay on the 3-day week after it officially finished (on a pro-rata rate), but request was denied. 😢 I did not own a car at the time and had the impression that the ration books had been delivered to post offices ready to be issued to the public at large. From what you say the process had got a bit further ahead than I recall!
|
|
|
Post by isa on Aug 15, 2022 23:57:12 GMT
I'd agree with that, not least on the basis that if a one-off bonus appears in your bank account, the temptation, in these straitened times, will be to spend it on whatever else is most pressing at the time, rather than consciously allocating it for energy bills, with the result that you're rapidly back at square one anyway. Have the arrangements been changed? When CoE Sunak announced them, the idea was that the cash would go directly to the energy suppliers who would use it to reduce the bills of their current customers, and would then recoup the money by increasing the bills of their (then) customers over the next few years and repay the Treasury.No idea. I was just making a general comment in respect of thexterminatingdalek 's observation. I hope his name appears in blue after this, as his moniker is easily the most challenging I have tried to replicate! Second time lucky!
|
|
|
Post by isa on Aug 16, 2022 0:25:47 GMT
Does anyone else think that the idea of the government making cash grants to help people out is a bit odd? Don't get me wrong I'll happily accept whatever's going, but I don't recall this ever happening prior to the furlough and other schemes during the pandemic. I can remember the fuel crisis of the early 70s, when Saudi Arabia decided to whack up the oil price. The response was to issue ration books for fuel, not to just subsidise everyone. Perhaps the difference is that food rationing was only about 20 years in the past then so a lot of people remembered it and were used to the idea. Now a lot of people seem to expect the government to look after them. Why? I'm ok with rationing. Maybe timed electricity blackouts or something as some countries do. I don't know how it would work for gas, but I'm sure someone does. Keep calm and carry on and so on. The ration books never got to be issued over the winter of 1973/74 - though we ended up with the 3 Day week under Ted Heath. Err, as Blackadder might have said, "They did down our way". I distinctly remember my father being sent petrol rationing coupons through the post in the mid '70s, albeit that they were never actually needed.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 16, 2022 0:36:03 GMT
On the energy cost proposals etc - the main reason politicians generally now favour broad targeting or even universality is they've come to realise in recent years how hard any alternative is.
The nirvana was meant to be RTI, Real Time Information - HMRC and the DWP would be able to see every time people got paid and calculate benefits dynamically according to need. Nearly a decade in, and it still doesn't work properly for some people - and usually the people who are most likely to need targeted help with something like energy costs. People who work irregular hours, or do multiple part-time jobs, can easily find themselves getting a constant stream of contradictory support changes from the DWP.
Not a party-political point really - the Tories and LibDems went full throttle on it in the Coalition and the Tories have failed to fix it since then, but the problems were all there too under the Child Support Agency throughout Labour's tenure. None of them have found a workable answer so far to the reality that the economy we now have means a significant number of people's earnings fluctuate faster than even a computerised welfare system can keep up with.
|
|
|
Post by ladyvalerie on Aug 16, 2022 1:07:49 GMT
You may have personal gripes over personal interactions, but your account suggests nothing that couldn't have been resolved by buying new appliances to replace your dangerous fires (and the CORGI system of approved independent suppliers and installers was established in 1970, so you weren't faced with a take-it-or-leave-it monopoly supplier, still less the Nazi-like organisation you fantasize about). I was a young man with a young family and had a mortgage rate of at least 12% at the time (it was higher than that at times). Buying new appliances was impossible financially and I was conned. I had no knowledge of corgi suppliers and no mention was made of them in the entire saga. It was no fantasy believe me. You were “a young man with a young family “. Surely it would have been more prudent and responsible to delay parenthood until you could afford it.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,004
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Aug 16, 2022 5:35:58 GMT
Not exactly a ringing endorsement from the Conservative Home Editor
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,004
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Aug 16, 2022 6:04:33 GMT
If your going to do the Bible it really needs to King James 1611 And if any man heare my words, and beleeue not, I iudge him not; For I came not to iudge the world, but to saue the world. I prefer a translation that is based on the best biblical scholarship of the last 400 years to the version that American conservative evangelicasl rely on. Is that the one that says Donald Trump is the new Messiah
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,004
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Aug 16, 2022 6:09:07 GMT
Re state owned V privately owned, let's not forget the East Coast Railway had to be taken into public Ownership twice due to the failure of private companies
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Aug 16, 2022 6:45:42 GMT
News this morning talking abut new covid vaccine -updated to cover the omicron strain.
Er, havnt we already had that one? The idea with annual flu vaccines surely is to design a vaccine which already covers the expected FORTHCOMING new strains, not last years strains!
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 16, 2022 6:46:08 GMT
neilj Death by decapitation or slow strangulation. Delightful. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Aug 16, 2022 6:48:29 GMT
Re state owned V privately owned, let's not forget the East Coast Railway had to be taken into public Ownership twice due to the failure of private companies It is a bit more nuanced than that. The government provide estimated operating figures for the years of the franchise and the potential franchisees offer their bids based on those estimates. The estimates prove massively incorrect and meant the winning franchisees found themselves operating at a potentially massive loss, so they withdrew. Should they be forced to continue and the company go bust or should they protect their shareholder's interests? Should the government negotiate an amended deal in the light of the reality of passenger numbers? Should the government sack the estimators? Should they totally privatise the line so that there are no franchises and the company owns the whole, say, ECML and sets their own service provision in competition with road and air and the government give them a subsidy for any public services that wouldn't normally be operated because of the high cost/low return, but are seen as socially important?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 16, 2022 6:53:25 GMT
#getbacktoworkyoufatponce trending.
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Aug 16, 2022 7:02:08 GMT
I'd agree with that, not least on the basis that if a one-off bonus appears in your bank account, the temptation, in these straitened times, will be to spend it on whatever else is most pressing at the time, rather than consciously allocating it for energy bills, with the result that you're rapidly back at square one anyway. Have the arrangements been changed? When CoE Sunak announced them, the idea was that the cash would go directly to the energy suppliers who would use it to reduce the bills of their current customers, and would then recoup the money by increasing the bills of their (then) customers over the next few years and repay the Treasury.Yes, they have changed. The £400 is now non-repayable and will be paid in 6 monthly instalments starting in October by energy supply companies into customers bank accounts if they pay by direct debit.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Aug 16, 2022 7:09:58 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Aug 16, 2022 7:12:35 GMT
I hope you realise comparing sex between consenting adults with pedophilia and incest is not a good look. During my lifetime the age of consent for gay male sex has changed from never to 21 to 18 to 16. The legal definition of pedophilia rather seems to depend on this formal age cutoff, so there really isnt much difference at the disputed margin between a question of sex between consenting adults and paedophilia. The organisation PIE (pedophile information exchange) received some mainstream support because it was advocating legalisation of what would then have been considered pedophile sex, under age of 21. Meanwhile, there seems to have been some attempts to raise this age again, and indeed also for heterosexuals. This morning's news talked about the 10th anniversary of the tinder online dating app. But while age of consent might be 16, age of consent to solicit sex electronically is 18, thereby preventing youngsters utilising their right to have sex by restricting their right to find a partner. (it seems though this law is widely flouted by said youngsters, which raises other questions)
Yes, they have changed. The £400 is now non-repayable and will be paid in 6 monthly instalments starting in October by energy supply companies into customers bank accounts if they pay by direct debit. Er, assuming their bills are bigger than the subsidy, as seems likely, then the utility will never pay anything into anyones bank account, simply deduct less.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 16, 2022 7:16:16 GMT
robbiealive - I don't agree with Pratley's analysis, which I see as a typical well paid media economists debating point. Yes, there is an issue with subsidising prices and how that distorts market decisions. That is a reasonable economic argument to make. What is missing though, I believe, is a recognition that energy costs have already risen substantially, making efficiency investments far more viable already, and Starmer is looking to head further incredibly large rises that take energy costs out of the affordable range for many more homes that the traditional less well off households. Along with huge price rises in basics like food, there will be no shortage of people trying to save energy this winter under Labour's proposals. The other fundamental point Pratley seems to miss is that he is approaching this entirely from the economic perspective, looking only at price signalling. Germany, for example, has for months now had an aggressive government led energy efficiency campaign, along with specific legislation requiring state organisations to cut consumption by 15%, and detailed negotiations with industry to achieve likewise. In the UK, there is a gaping hole where our short term energy strategy should be, with a dry economics debate filling the space that should be reserved for political action and public information campaigns. So I don't think Pratley's arguments really hold much water in the circumstances - yes, if this was a long term strategy to develop subsidised energy, but on his very comfortable media income, I think he has become a bit divorced from the day to day realities Labour's proposals are looking to address.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Aug 16, 2022 7:18:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Aug 16, 2022 7:19:39 GMT
Well I still have my ration book. I was looking forward to it coming into force as I had a 50cc motorbike and had coupons for a 2 litre car! 🤣 The 3-day week was also brilliant because I stayed on the same salary. As a matter of fact I asked to stay on the 3-day week after it officially finished (on a pro-rata rate), but request was denied. 😢 I did not own a car at the time and had the impression that the ration books had been delivered to post offices ready to be issued to the public at large. From what you say the process had got a bit further ahead than I recall! If memory serves, the rollout had started for those at the top of the alphabet and/or those in particular locations. I think my father was due to be getting his in a couple of weeks when the plan was changed and the rollout was stopped. Hence the ration books that were issued are likely to be quite low in number. Those that weren't binned at the time will be even rarer. It's the kind of interesting social history that would make for a good display in a museum
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Aug 16, 2022 7:20:29 GMT
Re state owned V privately owned, let's not forget the East Coast Railway had to be taken into public Ownership twice due to the failure of private companies It is a bit more nuanced than that. The government provide estimated operating figures for the years of the franchise and the potential franchisees offer their bids based on those estimates. The estimates prove massively incorrect and meant the winning franchisees found themselves operating at a potentially massive loss, so they withdrew. Should they be forced to continue and the company go bust or should they protect their shareholder's interests? Should the government negotiate an amended deal in the light of the reality of passenger numbers? Should the government sack the estimators? Should they totally privatise the line so that there are no franchises and the company owns the whole, say, ECML and sets their own service provision in competition with road and air and the government give them a subsidy for any public services that wouldn't normally be operated because of the high cost/low return, but are seen as socially important? Unless I am much mistaken, the lines were let by competitive tender, so franchisees went in with their eyes wide open. Because they were allowed to use Special Purpose Vehicles ie separate subsidiaries with limited capital it was a classic heads the franchisee wins, tails the taxpayer loses setup. An utter disgrace for the politicians who allowed theses contracts (see also the London Transport infrastructure companies, which had the identical problem). No parent company guarantees so minimal risk for franchisees and we had entered the era where there was no stigma attached to walking away (in earlier years there would likely have been both a parent company guarantee and a clear understanding that if a company walked away from a commitment they could forget about any further public sector business for the foreseeable)
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 16, 2022 7:29:01 GMT
Another right wing populist trashing the conventions of government - www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-rolesIt seems incredible, but Morrison declared himself as minister for five separate portfolios while PM, without the public ever knowing, and - quite incredibly - without many of the ministers in those departments ever being told. From Brazil, to the US, Australia and the good old United Kingdom, we've all been given a lesson in the dangers the right wing pose to democracy. The Conservatives have declined to learn the lesson here, and are prepared to go deeper into this cesspit. We can but hope that circumstances deny them the opportunity to con enough of the electorate to win power again, for the sake of the country.
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Aug 16, 2022 7:36:10 GMT
It is a bit more nuanced than that. The government provide estimated operating figures for the years of the franchise and the potential franchisees offer their bids based on those estimates. The estimates prove massively incorrect and meant the winning franchisees found themselves operating at a potentially massive loss, so they withdrew. Should they be forced to continue and the company go bust or should they protect their shareholder's interests? Should the government negotiate an amended deal in the light of the reality of passenger numbers? Should the government sack the estimators? Should they totally privatise the line so that there are no franchises and the company owns the whole, say, ECML and sets their own service provision in competition with road and air and the government give them a subsidy for any public services that wouldn't normally be operated because of the high cost/low return, but are seen as socially important? Unless I am much mistaken, the lines were let by competitive tender, so franchisees went in with their eyes wide open. Because they were allowed to use Special Purpose Vehicles ie separate subsidiaries with limited capital it was a classic heads the franchisee wins, tails the taxpayer loses setup. An utter disgrace for the politicians who allowed theses contracts (see also the London Transport infrastructure companies, which had the identical problem). No parent company guarantees so minimal risk for franchisees and we had entered the era where there was no stigma attached to walking away (in earlier years there would likely have been both a parent company guarantee and a clear understanding that if a company walked away from a commitment they could forget about any further public sector business for the foreseeable) The potential franchisees had to base their bids on government provided figures and the government accepted the one that offered least cost/most income to the Treasury. Failure to use the government figures meant disqualification from the bidding process. Insisting on holding company guarantees would likely mean no bidders. And how many rail franchises has Sea Containers won since they withdrew GNER from the ECML?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 16, 2022 7:48:15 GMT
Spaffer hard at work trying to solve the cost of living crisis
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2022 7:49:00 GMT
Thanks. That says :"An existing plan to give an extra £650 help for pensioners and those receiving universal credit would remain in place," So his £29bn package for 28m households =£1000 each -as he claims. But that includes the £400 they will not now get ( 40% ish of the "funding cost" ). So he is offering £600 new money-not £1000 Am I right ? But stopping the bills rising by another £2,000. You seem to be missing that bit. Don't think I am. So Starmer is proposing to cancel the October and January price cap rises. The current cap of £1971 pa is expected to double by the January OFGEM review. But Starmer is currently only promising to fund that difference for six months. Which is why his figure is £1000 and not £2000 And this is the problem with these universal price cap promises. If price rises continue ( and forecasts are for at least 2 years before energy costs fall again) , unless the State goes on funding , the consumer faces an even bigger cliff when the support is withdrawn. There is an article in Times today on France, where Macron is engaged in exactly this sort of policy. A year long price cap, a raft of special welfare payments, a nationalised /subsidised Energy supplier etc etc. All at the same time as planning to increase retirement age , cut unemployment benefits and control the deficit.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 16, 2022 8:10:59 GMT
I was pleased to see that proposed economic measures to counter the rise in the cost of living had pushed fornicating politicians off the front pages of UKPR. Graham seemed to have appointed himself as the forum's resident historical gossip columnist. An esoteric and ultimately unpopular job.
I think Robbiealive, Charles, Alec and Carfrew, amongst many others, have made particularly good points about Labour's proposals, unveiled yesterday, to freeze the energy price cap and I won't repeat, less eloquently too maybe, what they have already said.
Two thoughts, though. Firstly, such is the impotence of opposition, Labour are destined to play phantom policy making. It's not entirely futile politically, but in terms of the likelihood of any of it ever seeing the light of day and being enacted, well that's for the birds. Especially if it's policy to deal with an economic crisis rather than strategy to run an economy long term. The crisis passes, so does the relevance of the measures. If this was an election campaign, with Labour maybe weeks from power, then the detail of the proposals would bear more scrutiny and relevance. What they're doing now is potentially wrongfooting the government, seizing media attention and proving that there's something going on under the Labour bonnet.
Secondly, I'm a fan of universality. I know it's potentially a more expensive way of dispensing state largesse, but I've always liked the morality of it. Its inclusivity and assurance that people avoid being means tested and potentially ghettoised as benefit recipients. I've never had a problem with a millionaire sitting alongside a pauper in a NHS hospital waiting room, for example. Nor child benefit. I rather like that thought actually. It comforts me rather than appals me. It tells me we live in a society in the real sense of the word. Taxation is our membership fee.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Aug 16, 2022 8:21:42 GMT
@ lefthanging In not too long I will be becoming a father for the first time so I'll look forward to child benefit fun in future!
Hope all goes well - I would strongly advise that both of you get as much sleep now as you can now. Hope you have your nursery ready (I was about a month early with my first, and we hadn't got round to putting the cot up).
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Aug 16, 2022 8:36:46 GMT
@ lefthanging In not too long I will be becoming a father for the first time so I'll look forward to child benefit fun in future!
Hope all goes well - I would strongly advise that both of you get as much sleep now as you can now. Hope you have your nursery ready (I was about a month early with my first, and we hadn't got round to putting the cot up).
But, apparently you shouldn't use Crown paint. Not sure whether I'm on the 'can't take a joke' or the 'incensed social media' on that issue.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 16, 2022 8:42:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Aug 16, 2022 8:49:49 GMT
@leftmercian
"Certainly a lot of the nationalised industries made a loss."
It's worth distinguishing between "publicly owned companies" and "nationalisation" (if by the latter is meant direct management of an industry by government ministers).
While both can be subject to bad decision making at government level through short term political motivation, I think it is much less common with "arms length" companies, than those under direct government control. laszlo4new will know better than me, though. I think it is very important to differentiate between publicly owned and nationalised companies/industries, and the differentiation could be based on control/supervision. So, the point by oldnat is very relevant . (Just as a footnote: in political.science there is a.new approach about the evolution of democracy by role of the popolous (direct, representative and now controlled by the people). In some ways it is a bit mechanistic, but it evolved from the critique of "illiberal democracy".) Now, back to the point: it is not widely discussed but in the British nationalised industries all profits were paid to the state budget and all investment (whether assets or labour) were allocated by the government, that is investment to all those public services were subject to budgetary situations. Furthermore, companies had to produce a document for any resource for government approval. I read some of them many years ago. It was quite fascinating as in a.way they resembled to resource allocation requests in large US corporate documents. Essentially, the documents used a base approach (how much better we will be), the results had no proper milestones (so couldn't be evaluated), there were no points about effects in other nationalised sectors/companies or even within the company (British Rail was truly bad in that - infrastructure, rolling stock, men power were not linked). So, if the resource was allocated, the only goal of the company was to meet the expectations as this was considered as the argument for new resources in the future (but the expectations are not the same as effectiveness or efriciency, of course). Crucially, no British government has ever attempted to manage these companies/industries from the perspective of the whole, was obsessed with local optima as it looked like a good justification for allocating resources. Before any misunderstanding: none of the above means that private industries or companies are by definition better or don't make the same resource allocation systemic errors. Only that a publicly owned/controlled industry/company could operate under a different control system (setting the goal, visibility of performance, managing external links, allocation of resources, etc.). It could be done, for example, by having the elected public on the Board, having elected people on secondment in management, any of these operating under the set goals, regular (fortnightly?) update to the public, quarterly (?) public meeting, etc. (Just two more footnotes: British Airways as a nationalised company is quite fascinating; learning from Scottish water companies (on goals and priorities) would also help in designing the future publicly owned/controlled industries).
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 16, 2022 8:57:12 GMT
That amiable workhorse -- PJW1961 -- Hmmm ... I think I'll take that. Better than being an old nag. I just hope I'm not taken off to the knacker's yard too soon.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 16, 2022 9:03:25 GMT
#getbacktoworkyoufatponce trending. I am put in mind of all those times when some public sector official's salary is accused of being "more than the Prime Minister's". The comparison is silly anyway because PM's make a lot more than their official salary both during and after their premiership, but also Chief Executives of local authorities and NHS Trusts are generally expected to put in a full time amount of work. It seems the role of PM is part time only.
|
|