Do you want to discuss boring politics? (29 Viewers)

Forums New posts
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
Were those around Thatcher in 1982 briefing the media that one of her motivations was electoral if it even was?
Click to expand...

Don’t think we were obsessed with reporting everything to fall out of a backbenchers mouth in 1982 TBF.
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
PVA said:
A pint of milk was 40p in 2015 and is 65p now.
A pint of beer was £3.40 in 2015 and is £4.80 now.
Click to expand...
A pint of milk was 5p in 1975
A pint of beer was 20p in 1975

If memory serves. 🤭
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
www.bbc.co.uk

BBC apologises for 'serious flaws' over Gaza documentary

The documentary was pulled last week after it emerged its 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official.
www.bbc.co.uk

Classic BBC. Not taking any sides on this political mess, but I'm not sure how so many people can be so naive really.
Click to expand...
In what regard? That the BBC is insulting the intelligence of people once again bowing to the Israel lobby. If it believes there is a conflict of interest, tell people in the opening part of the documentary and let them judge for themselves.
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
I don't think you've read the article.
Click to expand...

There was also the issue where there was a documentary that deliberately mistranslated what a young girl was saying. Specifically, the word ‘Jihad’ was mistranslated to ‘struggle’ and ‘Jews’ to ‘Israeli forces’.

This alters the meaning of what was being said completely. It obfuscates a meaning that was insidious and this issue, among many, is why the BBC’s credibility as a gatekeeper of truth and impartiality is tanking.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Patients will be able to book more appointments online and request to see their usual doctor under a new contract agreed with England's GPs, the government has said.

The deal gives an extra £889m a year to general practices, as well as a reduction in red tape and targets that ministers hope will mean doctors are freed up to see more patients.
Click to expand...
Will need to wait to see if anything actually changes but this would be welcome. My GP had online booking pre-covid and it worked really well, especially for non-urgent stuff. You could book weeks, or even months, in advance and pick which GP you saw.

It was switched off at the start of covid when obv appointments stopped but never returned. Was run via the patient access system so presumably was available to all GPs.

The thing that would also greatly benefit all of us that work is bringing back the evening and weekend appointments but since Blair changed GP contracts there doesn't seem to have been any mention of that.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Will need to wait to see if anything actually changes but this would be welcome. My GP had online booking pre-covid and it worked really well, especially for non-urgent stuff. You could book weeks, or even months, in advance and pick which GP you saw.

It was switched off at the start of covid when obv appointments stopped but never returned. Was run via the patient access system so presumably was available to all GPs.

The thing that would also greatly benefit all of us that work is bringing back the evening and weekend appointments but since Blair changed GP contracts there doesn't seem to have been any mention of that.
Click to expand...

Just need to employ significantly more GPs to enable more practices to opt in to provide OOH services
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
Just need to employ significantly more GPs to enable more practices to opt in to provide OOH services
Click to expand...
Heard on the radio a while back that there's an ever increasing number of GPs out of work. Seems GP practices, now of course not often run by GPs but by private companies, were offered an incentive to employ nurse practitioners, with the idea of them being able to take some of the load of GPs.

This meant it became far cheaper to employ them than GPs so rather than adding extra staff they used them to replace GPs 🤦‍♂️
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Seems like the more "green energy" there is, the higher the prices.

This year = 42.3% renewable
10 years ago = 14.2% renewable

Standing Charge Cap now: 53p a day (£193 a year)
Avg Standing Charge 2015: 20p a day (£73 a year)

This year the cap = 27.03p per kWh
Average Electricity Tariff (2015) = 15.1p per kWh

At what point do the prices start to go down (for the end users)?
L
It's not a statement of fact as you don't know why or when energy prices are going to go down.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the energy companies are allowed to charge on the basis of the highest cost of production, fossil fuels, not the actual or the lowest. Madness.

The government, or at least idiot Milliband, blame the high energy prices on fluctuating gas and oil prices in the international market. Stop concreting over fracking wells and opposing new drilling for oil and gas so we are producing enough to meet our needs*. We have got judges who are now reversing previous approvals on the basis that impact assessments have only taken the carbon footprint of establishing the new facilities, and not included the carbon footprint of the gas / oil produced. They don’t seem to grasp that that quantity of oil / gas will be used regardless of whether it is produced in the UK or elsewhere.

*Someone will be along soon to tell me that isn’t the way international markets work and that extra gas and oil produced in the UK wouldn’t be reserved for the UK. That may be the case, but history would suggest that if more of a commodity appears on the international market then prices fall : if less prices rise.

Ive been looking at fixing my prices. Octopus energy must be making a fortune, They charge at a similar rate to everyone else (I.e. based on fossil fuel use for production, where their actual fossil fuels use is 0%). Rip off merchants profiteering it would seem.
 
Last edited:
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
The problem is that the energy companies are allowed to charge on the basis of the highest cost of production, fossil fuels, not the actual or the lowest. Madness.

The government, or at least idiot Milliband, blame the high energy prices on fluctuating gas and oil prices in the international market. Stop concreting over fracking wells and opposing new drilling for oil and gas so we are producing enough to meet our needs*. We have got judges who are now reversing previous approvals on the basis that impact assessments have only taken the carbon footprint of establishing the new facilities, and not included the carbon footprint of the gas / oil produced. They don’t seem to grasp that that quantity of oil / gas will be used regardless of whether it is produced in the UK or elsewhere.

*Someone will be along soon to tell me that isn’t the way international markets work and that extra gas and oil produced in the UK wouldn’t be reserved for the UK. That may be the case, but history would suggest that if more of a commodity appears on the international market then prices fall : if less prices rise.

Ive been looking at fixing my prices. Octopus energy must be making a fortune, They charge at a similar rate to everyone else (I.e. based on fossil fuel use, where their fossil fuels use is 0%).
Click to expand...
OR......

we could invest shitloads in an already cheaper per unit cost form of clean energy that would make us perpetually energy secure. In the meantime change the rules so the cost is dependent on the cost of production. People will quickly change over when they have to pay the actual cost of each type of energy. Demand for renewables goes up, so supply will go up to meet the demand. Then you can get better economies of scale and the cost of the infrastructure, such as solar panels and heat pumps, which is the biggest issue for most when considering switching, will drop significantly.

We should already be almost solely using renewables and the only reason we aren't is because people keep on giving in to the powerful oil lobby and deciding to invest money in spending money looking for more finite reserves of fossil fuels that are immensely destructive to get at.

The only future is one which uses clean, renewable power and doing anything other than this is futile. Even China are going big on renewables recently and they've still got a shit ton of fossil fuels available. They know where the future lies.
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
There was also the issue where there was a documentary that deliberately mistranslated what a young girl was saying. Specifically, the word ‘Jihad’ was mistranslated to ‘struggle’ and ‘Jews’ to ‘Israeli forces’.

This alters the meaning of what was being said completely. It obfuscates a meaning that was insidious and this issue, among many, is why the BBC’s credibility as a gatekeeper of truth and impartiality is tanking.
Click to expand...
BBC credibility isn’t tanking, it has tanked.

Its now the Biased British Cunits.
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
OR......

we could invest shitloads in an already cheaper per unit cost form of clean energy that would make us perpetually energy secure. In the meantime change the rules so the cost is dependent on the cost of production. People will quickly change over when they have to pay the actual cost of each type of energy. Demand for renewables goes up, so supply will go up to meet the demand. Then you can get better economies of scale and the cost of the infrastructure, such as solar panels and heat pumps, which is the biggest issue for most when considering switching, will drop significantly.

We should already be almost solely using renewables and the only reason we aren't is because people keep on giving in to the powerful oil lobby and deciding to invest money in spending money looking for more finite reserves of fossil fuels that are immensely destructive to get at.

The only future is one which uses clean, renewable power and doing anything other than this is futile. Even China are going big on renewables recently and they've still got a shit ton of fossil fuels available. They know where the future lies.
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot if what you say, especially around changing the pricing rules, that could have been done already and the Octopus situation is more than ample justification for the government to have legislated already. Had they done so, that would have removed one issue of constant justified criticism for failure to deliver. Of course, it would also probably have limited the potential for windfall taxation of said energy companies. I wonder why the government haven’t taken action?

The rules are going to have to be changed at some point, why not now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 23 (members: 2, guests: 21)
    Top