|
|
Post by mercian on Sept 4, 2022 22:05:01 GMT
robbiealive"I would add that the research opens by saying we used to believe that Conservatives see the world as more dangerous than Liberals & hence worry more about crime & immigration. Now if we include dangers like injustice, hitherto excluded, we fund that Liberals find the world as dangerous as Conservatives." So conservatives worry about tangible and measurable things, and liberals worry about subjective intangibles. That makes a lot of sense. --------------------------- davwel"Rather what is needed is for many people to live more efficiently and more frugally - houses more insulated, temperatures kept at necessary levels not hot, just one overseas holiday a year, vehicles smaller, purchasing longer-lasting articles." Though I do agree with the gist of that (though why have any foreign holidays?), I find it a bit amusing because it's usually the RoC who are accused of wanting to revert to the 1950s! 😃
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Sept 4, 2022 22:07:01 GMT
During the contest a figure of around 180,000 was being bandied about. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Sept 4, 2022 22:22:43 GMT
robbiealive
Rather unfair to criticise domjg for uttering platitudes. Sometimes it is worth while to make an obvious point to bring discussion back within sensible limits.
Your understanding of history is a tad flawed. The Jacobite rebellions weren't "Highland" ones. That is a rather flawed interpretation, as recent historical research has suggested.
There has been a genuine debate, since medieval times, in Scotland (as in many other polities which have a much larger and sometimes aggressive neighbour) as to how to handle that geographical proximity in the most advantageous manner. At its simplest, it comes down to whether it is better to have a close relationship with that neighbour, or to be more closely allied with its rivals. Both points of view have always had merits, but the balance of advantage has varied. It is essentially a pragmatic, rather than an ideological debate.
The opportunity to enhance Scotland's wealth by despoiling the rest of the world was a strong (indeed overwhelming at the time) argument for being part of the exploitative part of the British Empire.
With the demise of Empire, the UK Union seems to be less advantageous to many in Scotland, and the European Union (with its entitlement to leave if it no longer suits) a stronger and more valuable one. However, the polity is deeply divided (principally along age lines) and the older more conservative section of the population (whoever they vote for) probably unpersuadable.
I long thought that the UK was capable of reinventing itself to be a union more along the lines of the Kingdom of Denmark, but since that seems to be beyond the imagination of many in the largest part of the UK, leaving the UK Union seems, to around half the electorate who have a view, to be a preferable course of action.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Sept 5, 2022 6:09:57 GMT
Some interesting ideas here on energy price support - www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/05/a-crisis-is-coming-for-uk-energy-prices-and-this-is-what-has-to-be-doneThe intentions are laudable; more support for the poorest, limiting the exposure to the taxpayer, promoting efficiency; but the author once again completely bypasses the biggest single fundamental here, which is that a country that can produce around 75% of our electricity from domestically secured resources and around 50% of our gas comes from our own reserves, we really shouldn't be witnessing anything like the price gouging that we are currently seeing. Electricity prices should be rising at no more than 1/4 of the rate of global energy prices and gas no more than 1/2. The reason why we are seeing bills rise 4 or 5 fold is simply that we are allowing the market to mis-function, at the expense of energy users and in favour of big business generators and extractors. Any set of solutions that fail to address this fundamental is addressing the problem at the wrong end of the pipe. They may be better or worse solutions, but until we start talking about what would be in effect a wholesale nationalisation - or at least wholesale price regulation - of energy production in the UK, we're really not going to get to grips with this problem. It is the only cost free solution but needs heavy government intervention and the interests of big business to be tackled head on. There is an electoral pot of gold waiting for the party that grasps this. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Sept 5, 2022 6:28:51 GMT
colin - I don't think you should be quite so critical of somerjohn 's take on gas prices - he was well ahead of everyone on that, and the fundamental point - that the UK government has for a very long time (pre and post Ukraine invasion) failed to initiate any forms of protection against price shocks. Our levels of storage are woeful, and unlike Germany in particular, and the wider EU as a whole, the advice from the Conservatives is that energy savings are a matter for the individual, rather than a reason for a huge, coordinated national effort to pursue demand reduction wherever possible as a way to both defeat Putin and protect against higher prices. All governments have made failures here of one sort or another, but none have been quite so dogmatically inactive in the face of a raging storm as ours. I wasn't . It was his lack of even handedness I commented on. The whole of Europe as thrashing around trying to source imported LNG , and cut consumption of energy ahead of the winter. France seems the only country to have really planned ahead with their nuclear fleet. I don't think anyone knows what damage will be done to families and businesses this winter. And that is not restricted to UK. This morning news was speculating on new gas price rises today. Russia only produces 15% of the world's gas, and its unclear how much of that it is still selling. Europe was reported as having cut consumption by 15% in domestic context and more in commercial (because gas based ativities are now uneconomic so have stopped). So..Europe at least should be using sufficiently less gas as to offset Russia not supplying. Unfortunately not quite that easy because Russia was disproportionately supplying europe because it is close, and Europe is stocking up as much as possible for winter. Not the Uk, of course, because we closed our storage facilities.
However, its clear the gas market is out of control and intervention is needed to force supply at lower prices. Germany is reported as intending to decouple energy prices from different sources to prevent eg wind getting the same massive prices as fossil fuels. They said they will tax windfall profits and put in place an automatic tax system on excess profits, with the revenus being used to subsidise other fuel sources. The UK must do the same. Truss likely to act? what we are seeing is the logical consequence of deregulating markets and placing energy supply as a private monopoly. And its destroying western nations. But everryone needs to remember the rise in prices began six months before the russian war. Its root cause is the policy of decrabonisation, where nations set deadlines for discontinuing use of fossil fuels, but then left it to markets to find alternatives. That simply doesnt work. It certainly made mining companies cancel plans to develop new resources, but it didnt incentivise anyone to build all the necessary alternative energy supply.
And then two years of lockdown further suppressed demand temporarily, and made new developments harder to do. So at the end, there was already a built in shortage. Plus the longer term trend is probably for higher demand for gas because of the medium term switch from coal to gas, which cuts CO2 emissions per unit energy, and has been incentivised. We encouraged more people to use gas while discouraging development of new supplies. Duh! And all of that squarely during the current conservative 12 year term.
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Sept 5, 2022 6:37:15 GMT
domjg
"Conservatives on the other hand are wedded to a cultural snapshot, a belief that their world as it is or more likely as it was recently, perhaps when they were young is somehow the pre-ordained natural order of things when in reality of course it was a brief interval in the human experience."
Capitalising "conservatives" because it is the first word in the sentence, might lead folk to think you are applying that descriptor only to those who vote Tory.
I presume that this was unintentional, as there are a significant number of people (primarily older) voting for each and every party that could be so described.
I would include some revolutionary socialists in that category. Simply because their belief system in unending class war against the prevailing order has dominated their thinking for so many years. The research is based on US evidence & uses the terms Conservatives & Liberals as they are understood there. There is therefore no question of an intentional or unintentional reference to the Tories. Which number Quibble was that? Maybe, but the poster in questions ( domjg) has "form" in trying to slur people as Tory voters / supporters. Nonetheless, there are a lot of supporters of all parties who are described as small c conservatives. The fact that the study was American confuses matters even further, where many voters of the Democratic party are quite right wing in their views, and that party is closer to the UK Tory party than UK Labour. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Sept 5, 2022 6:42:55 GMT
interesting an economics interviewee on R4 just blamed some of our current problems on the fact China is continuing a policy of covid lockdowns. now
Interesting to hear someone finally admitting lockdowns caused economic harm and now world pending recession.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on Sept 5, 2022 6:51:45 GMT
jib There are progressive elements within the democratic party which would be at home in the Labour or liberal democrats here, but it would be more accurate to describe it overall as closer to where the Tory party used to be. Neither the democrats or the pre referendum Tories would have been stupid enough to impose huge additional restrictions with their main trading partners, that type of bonkers nationalist exceptionalism is a new departure from reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Sept 5, 2022 6:56:42 GMT
A quick word on energy savings scams for interested posters: I'm seeing a lot of bogus advertising for miracle products that can save consumers vast sums of money on their fuel bills. The two current top scams are online offers of fuel additives that can save anything from 25 - 35% on road fuel by adding 'hydrogen additives' to the fuel tank. The most cursory glance at the numbers shows this to be completely unfeasible, so please don't get sucked in. The other old favourite is a company selling magnets to fit around your gas or oil feed pipe, which can do something to align the molecules for a cleaner burn which then saves money. Other versions act to agitate oxygen molecules in liquid fuels etc. Again, it's a nonsense that has been around for a long time. Sometimes people try to sell you this stuff with a demonstration where they ask you to hold your hand over a burning candle for 10 seconds, and then repeat this after they place their magic product around the flame. It feels much hotter, so hey presto, it works!. All they have done is warm your skin up and then given you another 10 seconds to start feeling the burn, and it's scientifically nonsense. Another favourite trick from the fraudsters is to cite apparently genuine case studies of households who save X% of their fuel after installing their product. These can be genuine, but the savings are nothing to do with the daft product, but everything to do with good energy management. The savings come because people are checking their consumption on a regular, structured manner. It's the old 'measure, monitor, manage' mantra; by regular meter readings the user becomes far more energy aware, and inadvertently starts to manage wasteful practices better, thus reducing usage. The scientifically illiterate product is an unwitting spur to better practices. So there will be a huge number of scams and fraudsters crawling out of the workwork on energy saving products now, so I would advise everyone to be very careful, look for independent assessments (the Energy Savings Trust is a good place to start - see energysavingtrust.org.uk/energy-at-home/buying-energy-efficient-products/ ) and remember that if something looks too good to be true, it will be just that. Take care. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Sept 5, 2022 6:59:16 GMT
Danny - "And then two years of lockdown further suppressed demand temporarily, .." If you could point us to the countries that had two year lockdowns that would be helpful. If you can't, your point is a nonsense.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Sept 5, 2022 7:08:25 GMT
What it seems boil down to is that conservatives want less change (at least for their own env) regardless of any negative effects flowing from that which is kind of what conservatism means I suppose. When you look at the whole span of human civilisation cultures wax and wane, religions come to the ascendant and decline, new identities are forged or abandoned, peoples move from place to place. I guess I see current global developments as just being the natural continuation of that. Conservatives on the other hand are wedded to a cultural snapshot, a belief that their world as it is or more likely as it was recently, perhaps when they were young is somehow the pre-ordained natural order of things when in reality of course it was a brief interval in the human experience. I guess one of the reasons American conservatives are becom ing more extreme is that modern America increasingly doesn’t reflect their own previously dominant culture and they cannot psychologically deal with this, leading them to either a) pretend it’s not really happening (ie Biden couldn’t possibly have won) or b) attempt to maintain their grip on power through social and electoral Apartheid by disenfranchising large numbers of people. Note thats small c conservatives, who might indeed be labour supporters who are conservative in that they too see the world the same way as when they were young. It kinda reinforces the argument that those who were most eurosceptic at the first Eu referendum, were still the most eurosceptic at the second referendum. It was just they were 50 years older. Didnt change their fundamental outlook. (whoever posted before about this, yes, the whole Uk was much more eurosceptic this time but the variation by age group still applies. But Leave still only got about 100,000 or so more votes this time than remain got last time on a now much bigger electorate. Clear minority for leave.) If post WW2 citizens had a world picture where the Uk was supreme over all and able to do anything all by itself, how much more must the same group think this in the US? |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on Sept 5, 2022 7:12:56 GMT
Here's a genuine saving measure that's really simple.
Most boilers have a control that regulates flow temperature there's often an e on the regulator that suggests this is the most economic temperature, it isn't , the lower the temperature the better the flow.
For conventional boilers with a hot water tank this should be set at 60°c, the lowest safe temperature because of legionaires, combi boilers can be set as low as you actually want the hot water to run at normally about 45°c, inevitably people mix hot and cold at the tap, why not simply do this at the boiler.
Moving from the recommended settings to these will reduce your bill by around 15%.
Oh and lag your pipes round a hot water tank will save another 5%.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Sept 5, 2022 7:19:03 GMT
If this article really does accurately reflect Labour thinking on how to deal with Truss the PM, then I think it's a sensible approach. There is a danger that in the rush to belittle and mock her, her political strengths and potential appeal may be overlooked. That doesn't mean fearing her, because there are clear weaknesses to exploit, but it does mean recognising her political skill. Self evidently, you don't get to be PM without having your political wits about you. I always think in politics that it's a better approach to overrate your opponent rather than underestimate them. It's quite possible that the flaws Truss has revealed in her political career so far, and particularly during the leadership contest, and her misguided views on many issues, lead to her being a disastrous PM. Once installed in Downing Street, however, and with the levers of power in her hands, she may prove a more formidable opponent than first thought. Accordingly, Labour are right to take her seriously and to think about the best strategies to take her down. I detect a tenacious street fighter in Truss who may well be a bit smarter than the lampooners are currently making out. www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/05/ideological-strength-could-be-liz-trusss-key-weakness-hopes-labour |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Sept 5, 2022 7:38:55 GMT
That debate aside, I think her problems will focus more on delivering the Conservative's leveling up promises. This is a legacy issue I really don't think she can divorce herself from - it wasn't a policy made by mistake, or an error by her predecessor that can be reversed and undone. It was a popular notion, broadly understood by everyone (in non-specific terms) and a key reason why Conservatives secured a majority. She has to deliver on this. Even downgrading the priorities on leveling up is likely to hurt their prospects in the next election. Tax cuts really won't deliver leveling up. Margaret Thatcher made promises of levelling up, though we didnt use that phrase back then. Its absolutley standard conservative playbook to promise levelling up, but then not deliver.
Having said that, pre Thatcher levelling up was probably an implicit goal of all post war governments. She marked the change from attempted delivery to empty promises. While I am slagging her off, I would note that the government did try to level up. Heseltine in particular attempted to help poorer areas. But it also pretty much marked drawing stumps on that policy. There is no real attempt now to do so.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Sept 5, 2022 7:56:43 GMT
The BMJ have started to publish a series of intelligent and thoughtful articles prepared for the covid inquiry. Needless to say, these expert led articles contain critiques of government actions and policy, but they are penned by authors with deep and broad knowledge of the subject. The reaction in the right wing press is not unexpected, but revolves mainly around ad hominem attacks on the scientists, who are variously described as extremists and suchlike. These attacks have been joined (and in some cases coordinated) by anti-vaxxer/covid denier groups like Hart and UsforThem, (both of which have links to a number of right wing Conservative MPs). I heard someone responding to sunak on R4 science program last week. Speaking as a SAGE expert as he claimed to be, I can only say he had some howlers in his facts. There was no attempt to provide balance to his statement.
There is obviously going to be a blame game here, but the outcome was because there was no master. Medics put forward suggested medical approaches, and then deferred to government to make decisions. Government felt it had no political choice except to accept any medical recommendation. Thus neither side made a calculation whether the costs of the interventions meant that on balance it was not in the national interest to do them.
Absolutely no one was willing to admit that saving lives with medical intervention costs money. That there is a budget cap, so we choose to allow people to die all the time. Covid was no different to this, and by normal standards it was a vast amount of money for inadequate medical return, It should not have happened and thats why blame has begun now. Had lockdown (etc) clearly worked then we would not be arguing, but it failed. So whose fault was it we did it?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on Sept 5, 2022 8:01:46 GMT
crossbat11 I take Truss seriously I think she's a serious danger to the economy a serious danger to our remaining legacy European union rights , a serious danger to the poorest 60% of the population and a serious danger to those who don't think delusional right wing wishful thinking trumps reality. But frankly I honestly can't see that more exposure to Truss will do anything other than improve the chances of progressive parties. Sadly Truss represents one of the twenty safest tory seats in the country and even the cull of the inept sleaze merchants that's hopefully coming is unlikely to carry her off however richly she deserves defenestration.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Sept 5, 2022 8:02:11 GMT
Of course, we're all going to look a bit silly if Sunak emerges as the anointed one in a few hours time!
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on Sept 5, 2022 8:04:56 GMT
@danny
Thatcher levelled up millions by selling publicly owned housing at a loss to the then occupiers while insuring that future generations of renters would be priced out of affordable accommodation by not replacing the lost stock.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Sept 5, 2022 8:05:19 GMT
The research is based on US evidence & uses the terms Conservatives & Liberals as they are understood there. There is therefore no question of an intentional or unintentional reference to the Tories. Which number Quibble was that? Maybe, but the poster in questions ( domjg ) has "form" in trying to slur people as Tory voters / supporters. Nonetheless, there are a lot of supporters of all parties who are described as small c conservatives. The fact that the study was American confuses matters even further, where many voters of the Democratic party are quite right wing in their views, and that party is closer to the UK Tory party than UK Labour. Seriously? For some of us it's obvious that not everything is about UK cultural associations. As Robbiealive pointed out in the American context and even in the wider Western world context it's obvious what the appellations 'conservative' and 'liberal' mean. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on Sept 5, 2022 8:06:09 GMT
crossbat11 But the poor huddled masses in Tunbridge wells will be delighted.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Sept 5, 2022 8:06:40 GMT
crossbat11 I take Truss seriously I think she's a serious danger to the economy a serious danger to our remaining legacy European union rights , a serious danger to the poorest 60% of the population and a serious danger to those who don't think delusional right wing wishful thinking trumps reality. But frankly I honestly can't see that more exposure to Truss will do anything other than improve the chances of progressive parties. Sadly Truss represents one of the twenty safest tory seats in the country and even the cull of the inept sleaze merchants that's hopefully coming is unlikely to carry her off however richly she deserves defenestration. All true, but I'm looking at the politics of it all and the ability Truss may have to exploit the innate conservatism of the electorate. Never underestimate that large slice of the population who only need the merest of excuses to vote Tory. Very little permission required unlike Labour. Poundshop Maggie may have more mileage than we think. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Sept 5, 2022 8:17:04 GMT
Most boilers have a control that regulates flow temperature there's often an e on the regulator that suggests this is the most economic temperature, it isn't , the lower the temperature the better the flow. For conventional boilers with a hot water tank this should be set at 60°c, the lowest safe temperature because of legionaires, combi boilers can be set as low as you actually want the hot water to run at normally about 45°c, inevitably people mix hot and cold at the tap, why not simply do this at the boiler. Moving from the recommended settings to these will reduce your bill by around 15%. All this hype teling people to turn down the flow temperature is telling them to deliver less heat into their rooms. Up to a point this will work to deliver the temperature they want, until you get to the point the heating is on 100% of the time and still can't cope. Heating systems generally switch off for a bit once you reach required room temperature. But beyond being always on, it cannot deliver more heat without upping that water temperature. All the figures quoted about the savings from condensing boilers assume they are run at the most cost effective temperatures. This is bunk as few people do that. Some people have so inadequate radiators they should never have been recommended to install a condensing boiler because by itself it couldnt help. One of the best ways I found to save money is to have zoned heating. Not popular with plumbers though. They just slap on thermostatic radiator valves. The point of zoned heating is you can switch some of it off when not needed. The most obvious choice is to zone bedrooms and living rooms differently, so bedrooms are only heated at night and living day. Significant difference when I did this. It might not be too difficult to do, depending on how your pipes run. In our case it was one pair of pipes going upstairs, so it was easy.
Yes, turn down your flow temperature, but you might want to adjust it regularly depending how cold the weather is if it is now too low. Some boilers do have a limited automatic adjustment using an outdoor thermometer so they increase the water temperature when its really cold. But that I looked into was rather expensive and not very flexible.
yes and No. In summer thats wasted heat heating your already hot house. In winter any heat leaking from the airing cupboard will help heating the whole house so it isnt exactly wasted. One claim made for modern boilers increased efficiency is because they dont dump heat into the air around them. Whereas an old floor mounted boiler in your kitchen would likely have given out enough heat by itself to heat a small kitchen. The manufacturers claimed this as an efficiency saving of waste heat by perhaps 10%, but in reality unless your boiler was placed in the garage, that heat usually was not wasted at all. But the 10% improvement is added into the claimed benefits of a modern boiler. There has been a huge ripoff in claimed improvements of modern boiler technology with tricks like this. Something similar was done when energy efficient light bulbs were first introduced, but manufacturers falsley equated new style bulbs too dim compared to their claimed traditional predecessors. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Sept 5, 2022 8:20:08 GMT
crossbat11 I take Truss seriously I think she's a serious danger to the economy a serious danger to our remaining legacy European union rights , a serious danger to the poorest 60% of the population and a serious danger to those who don't think delusional right wing wishful thinking trumps reality. But frankly I honestly can't see that more exposure to Truss will do anything other than improve the chances of progressive parties. Sadly Truss represents one of the twenty safest tory seats in the country and even the cull of the inept sleaze merchants that's hopefully coming is unlikely to carry her off however richly she deserves defenestration. All true, but I'm looking at the politics of it all and the ability Truss may have to exploit the innate conservatism of the electorate. Never underestimate that large slice of the population who only need the merest of excuses to vote Tory. Very little permission required unlike Labour. Poundshop Maggie may have more mileage than we think. It will be interesting to see how much, if at all, her rhetoric changes once she's confirmed as that will be an indication how atuned to reality she really is. If she does start sounding vaguely more sensible once she's PM she may be more tricky that we thought. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,377
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Sept 5, 2022 8:23:59 GMT
Perhaps a side issue and not that important in the big scheme of things, but it concerns the National Trust I am a member and don't usually bother to vote in their elections, but will this time. There is a rather shadowy organisation called Restore Trust trying to infiltrate it. Details here www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/national-trust-warns-of-threat-from-ideological-campaign-waged-against-itThey are back for the 2022 elections and their twitter feed helpfully gives recommendations as to who to vote for It is useful for me as to who not to vote for. One of those they endorsed last year, Stephen Green, advocated the death penalty for gay people? Posted in case any one else finds it useful. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Sept 5, 2022 8:29:14 GMT
@danny Thatcher levelled up millions by selling publicly owned housing at a loss to the then occupiers while insuring that future generations of renters would be priced out of affordable accommodation by not replacing the lost stock. Politics is littered with the unintended consequences of the decisions of politicians. Partly because they don't care about the consequences as they'll be long gone and are only interested in their own glory and self advancement and partly because politicians are shallow by nature, driven by a self assurance the rest of us don't have, that they are the ones to solve all the problems facing, generally pursued by not looking too deeply and ignoring any wise counsel to wait, think and reconsider. Society would be immeasurably better if our elected representatives were not politicians. There ought to be a law that ordinary citizens must submit themselves for election by mandate. Let's face it, a parliament made up thus couldn't do any worse. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Sept 5, 2022 8:33:50 GMT
crossbat11 But the poor huddled masses in Tunbridge wells will be delighted. The huddled masses in Tunbridge Wells also think houses are too expensive. Maybe that why its turning lib dem. @danny Thatcher levelled up millions by selling publicly owned housing at a loss to the then occupiers while insuring that future generations of renters would be priced out of affordable accommodation by not replacing the lost stock. Again, this didnt happen all in one go. There was right to buy legislation, but then there was also death by 1000 cuts to local authorities preventing them replacing any of those homes. First no new money, then they were forbidden to reinvest proceeds in housing, then loss of rights to purchase cheap land, changes in planning law making it hard even for a LA which wanted to to build new homes. Perhaps a side issue and not that important in the big scheme of things, but it concerns the National Trust I am a member and don't usually bother to vote in their elections, but will this time. ...... One of those they endorsed last year, Stephen Green, advocated the death penalty for gay people? Posted in case any one else finds it useful. The national trust is now a truly massive landowner in the UK and as such has enormous power. Thats a problem with any private organisation, but especially when control of it can so easily be taken by a minority. The NT can now override attempts to build new homes, for example. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Sept 5, 2022 8:39:01 GMT
@danny Thatcher levelled up millions by selling publicly owned housing at a loss to the then occupiers while insuring that future generations of renters would be priced out of affordable accommodation by not replacing the lost stock. Politics is littered with the unintended consequences of the decisions of politicians. Interesting question to what extent these policies had unintended consequences, or whether the long term effects were thought through and desired.
The policy has transferred cheap rented husing stock to the private sector where it has become an investment asset of expensive rented accommodation. Instead of being a subsidy of the poor by the state, it has become a means for the rich to extract more wealth from the poor. It precisely served the aims of traditional backers of the conservative party by making the poor give more to the rich.
It also deprived labour of a traditional method it had used to help the poor labour voters. made labour less relevant to those voters. Con have systematically tried to eliminate any method whereby the state helps the poor. The current electricity market is a case in point.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Sept 5, 2022 8:39:20 GMT
steve - "One of the best ways I found to save money is to have zoned heating. Not popular with plumbers though. They just slap on thermostatic radiator valves. The point of zoned heating is you can switch some of it off when not needed. The most obvious choice is to zone bedrooms and living rooms differently, so bedrooms are only heated at night and living day. Significant difference when I did this. It might not be too difficult to do, depending on how your pipes run. In our case it was one pair of pipes going upstairs, so it was easy." Sound advice. Thermostatic radiator vales (TRVs) are great because they are cheap, but you need to remember to use them on a daily basis at times. Happily, zoning these days shouldn't need to involve changes to pipe runs. You can now zone your system with smart valve kits - see here for a randomly selected example - wiser.draytoncontrols.co.uk/zonal-heating?gclid=EAIaIQobChMItsXl1p_9-QIVFpftCh1QywhCEAAYASAAEgLb3vD_BwE Honeywell also do a good system, (this does not mean I am endorsing any specific product). You can replace the existing radiator valves and configure your own zones based on how you use the house, rather than have the zones defined by the pipe work.
|
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Sept 5, 2022 8:40:40 GMT
@danny Thatcher levelled up millions by selling publicly owned housing at a loss to the then occupiers while insuring that future generations of renters would be priced out of affordable accommodation by not replacing the lost stock. Politics is littered with the unintended consequences of the decisions of politicians. Partly because they don't care about the consequences as they'll be long gone and are only interested in their own glory and self advancement and partly because politicians are shallow by nature, driven by a self assurance the rest of us don't have, that they are the ones to solve all the problems facing, generally pursued by not looking too deeply and ignoring any wise counsel to wait, think and reconsider. Society would be immeasurably better if our elected representatives were not politicians. There ought to be a law that ordinary citizens must submit themselves for election by mandate. Let's face it, a parliament made up thus couldn't do any worse. Mmmmm I'm not sure how that would pan out. I fear we would end up with a new televised selection process. Hosted by some media personality  |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Sept 5, 2022 8:41:24 GMT
alec, Recently you said you had information about medical samples taken winter 2019/20 in Hastings which had been retrospectively tested for covid. I asked if you could please provide a link to those results, which you claimed proved there was no covid then in Hastings. I am particularly interested to know what they did think those sick people had, if the results said it was not covid? But as I also said, I have never seen any such results...?
|
|
