Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

That's a fair comparison.

On this I think it is probably sustainable and will be the norm for most existing stuff. I don't see why we would require massive checks on goods from the EU or would have a separate mark for the exact same standards. It seems purely symbolic. And I hope it generally marks the end of the symbolic phase of Brexit and a bit more focus on the substance/issues (even though they're boring) - I think AI is an interesting example on this. Although the government looking at imperial measurements again despite an overwhelmingly negative public consultation feels like we're actually just doing the Cones Hotline again and again forever

Also we still have to contend with Sunak's Treasury brain. So despite participation in Horizon being agreed in deals negotiated by Johnson and Frost and supported by Truss, apparently Sunak's having second thoughts. This isn't because of Brexit politics but because he's not sure on "value for money" despite British science overwhelmingly backing it

Edit: I mean one obvious transformation of the EU which I think we'd all like to see in the near future is what would be required for Ukraine's accession after the war.

[Tamas]

I am still convinced we'll eventually end up with a Norway-style model. It will have given back the benefits minus the influence and control, and the latter will be judged a fair price to pay to pretend leaving wasn't a massive mistake of historical proportions.

[Josquius]

I've also long thought the EU is set for some sort of a League of Nations -> United Nations style dissolution and reformation to sort out some of its core issues- stuff like Hungary sliding away from democracy. With this British full involvement will become far more possible again also.

[Gups]

Quitlings really do need stabbing.

 

Is this some kind of slang? I hope so (the stabbing bit I mean).

[HVC]

Quitlings really do need stabbing.

 

Is this some kind of slang? I hope so (the stabbing bit I mean).

Josq is getting less violent. Before it was shooting. Progress?

[Josquius]

 
I feel the stabbing is more violent as its a lot more personal and absolutely not a figure speech.
Regardless it was obvious hyperbole. Real violence is bad kids. Even against Dominic Cummings.

[mongers]

Back to theme of UK train ticketing being slightly complex, just checking the times and tickets for a couple of regional journeys over the next few days.

Going to museums in Reading and Basingstoke plus others, so the return ticket to Basingstoke is X amount, but to change there and add another 28 minute train journey to Reading on top of the 34min original cost a massive extra 20p.

Yet if I was to go the other way, towards Bristol, but change at Westbury and go one stop to Pewsey up the London Paddington line, then that 16 minute one stop costs an extra £6.65 in comparison to the above 10p journey.

The ticket types can be a bit confusing as in addition to the 'advance ticket' for a specific time train, which I don't use, you're offered a day return, an off-peak day return, evening out return or a semi-flex return. I think that's all of them?

Why can't they just charge something like a standard 25p per mile peak times and a 15p per mile off-peak, which I believe was the basic approach of rail ticketing before privatisation?


 

[Richard Hakluyt]

David Olusoga comments on the Daily Mail's "Woke list" https://twitter.com/DavidOlusoga/status/1685694556824596480 

[Josquius]

Is this    or ?

[Sheilbh]

David Olusoga comments on the Daily Mail's "Woke list" https://twitter.com/DavidOlusoga/status/1685694556824596480 

Yes. That's why a said "insinuation" rather than "allegation". Both Tamas and Jacob took the artcile has implying corruption as would any reasonable reader.

Agree, this doesn't appear to have got past an online news website (whcih I'd never head of before but looks pretty superficial). No reference to the "story" in either the Guardian or Times today as far as I can tell. These things take time though and possibly there are journalists researching the kind of questions I posed.

Yeah. Also in relation to Infosys, his father in law is one of the founders and was CEO at one point. He's now in his 80s and is "Emeritus Chairman". They're a listed company with $20 billion revenue a year and they're one of the biggest IT companies in the world. I think there might be part of it that's about them being an Indian company, it's basically the same as if he were married to a Salesforce or Oracle heiress - you'd need to work really hard to find a sector they're not involved in and won't potentially benefit from/have clients in.

Additionally in relation to the £175 million UK government contracts, worth noting that UK procurement spend is around £300 billion.

That site has form. I remember one article that made similar insinuations about this company that was winning loads of government contracts, and among many of its senior leaders were Tory donors - then at the end of the article it turned out it was Deloitte or another of the big four

I think there is a wider question of institutionalised corruption in the outsourcing and government consultancy work but I don't think it's this.

Separately - another example of why I think Britain's inability to build quickly and sclerosis impacts everything. Very difficult to see us hitting the target of decarbonising the grid any time soon (Tory target: 2035; Labour target: 2030) if it takes 12-14 years to build pylons - and I think this is in addition to the up to 15 year waiting list to connect renewables projects to the grid. Government looking at following GF's solution hopefully it'll work but I have my doubts:

Give cash to households in path of new pylons, government urged
By Paul Seddon
Politics reporter

Households should be given cash if they live in the path of new large electricity pylons, a government-commissioned report says.

The recommendation is among several to speed up the building of new infrastructure in Great Britain to better connect with new renewable energy.

Key is a fast-track planning system to help halve the 12 to 14 years it currently takes to build new lines.

The government has welcomed the report.

Energy Security Secretary Grant Shapps will now consider the recommendations and is expected to present a plan later this year.

However, the construction of new lines could open fresh rifts with Conservative MPs campaigning against planned pylons in their area.

Environment Secretary Therese Coffey and former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel are among high-profile MPs opposing plans for new lines affecting their constituencies.

The government ordered the review in July last year as part of plans to improve the transmission of renewable energy, including from wind farms and new nuclear stations, to homes and businesses.

The report, by energy industry veteran Nick Winser, said the push to decarbonise was being held back by the slow pace of new pylon projects.

It has recommended a streamlined planning process as part of plans to reduce the time it takes to around seven years, and closer alignment between planning rules in Scotland and the separate system for England and Wales.

It said people living near transmission pylons, the larger lines that connect electricity from where it is generated to regional substations, should get lump sum payments from operators.

The report does not recommend specific levels of compensation or qualification criteria. It says a further consultation may be needed to work out a formula, which would need to be approved by the energy watchdog Ofgem.

'Pay off communities'

It also supported community payments for areas where new "visible infrastructure", including substations, is built, to pay for local programmes such as energy efficiency schemes or electric vehicle charging points.

The cost of compensation would be lower than building cables underground, it added, which it said was between five and 10 times more than overhead lines. Offshore cables were even more expensive, it noted.

But Rosie Pearson, founder of the Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk Pylons Action Group, said the idea of community payments was "very worrying".

"It sounds like they might be intending to essentially pay off communities with nominal sums instead of actually getting the right projects," she told the BBC.


Dame Priti Patel recently took part in a protest against proposed pylons in her Essex constituency

The National Grid says it needs five times more power lines to be built in the next seven years than in the past 30, as part of the transition towards greener forms of energy.

Ministers are consulting on new rules for compensation schemes designed to persuade local areas they are "positively benefitting" from living near the new infrastructure.

Currently, these are struck project-by-project, with community compensation schemes paid through consumer bills on a nationwide basis.

The three companies that maintain the transmission grid in Britain - National Grid in England and Wales, and Scottish Power and SSE in Scotland - do not offer payments to households at present.

But the government has signalled it is open to the idea, saying it would prefer a "blended approach" of community and direct payments, where this is supported locally.

It is also exploring whether people living near new onshore wind farms in England could get discounts off their energy bills.

Ministers have backed the current voluntary approach to payments, arguing it is quicker and allows for more flexibility, but are "retaining the option to move to a mandatory approach if necessary".

Some campaign groups have backed a mandatory compensation scheme, arguing it would ensure payments are fairer.

In the Irish Republic, people in rural areas living within 200m of a new overhead line or transmission station qualify for payments of €2,000-30,000 from EirGrid, the state-owned operator, depending on how close they are and the capacity of the line.

New pylon schemes have encountered opposition from some Conservative MPs, particularly in East Anglia, where a number of large projects are under way to bring clean power onshore.



Mr Winser told the BBC that frustration with new schemes was "understandable", adding that there was often "very little context provided" on the benefits and trade-offs of new projects.

He added that better nationwide planning, coupled with community benefits, would make new schemes more attractive and ensure local debates on schemes are "far less heated".

Speaking to the BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said his recommendations would make debates within communities "open and transparent so people will be able to understand why something is being proposed".

His review also called for a government-led publicity campaign on "the need for a grid refresh", along with a review to tackle a shortage of qualified engineers and technicians.

Obviously you then add that basically every other piece of our net zero strategy is based on electrification - and that we've had a couple of year's of almost hitting capacity already

From a separate article on this and the challenge of needing to build 5 times as much in the next 7 years as we have in the last 30 years, this is promising (and is also exactly the sort of thing a party with a massive majority should do) - although it's not super clear what it means and...you know, let's see if it lasts:

Labour insiders have said "we will do whatever is necessary" if the party wins the next general election.

Edit: Separately I feel like we're on the edge of developing an anti-pork barrel politics. Politicians campaigning on how many investments and new infrastructure projects they've managed to block in their constituency

[Valmy]

But Rosie Pearson, founder of the Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk Pylons Action Group, said the idea of community payments was "very worrying".

"It sounds like they might be intending to essentially pay off communities with nominal sums instead of actually getting the right projects," she told the BBC.

There is no magical right project that will make everybody happy. If you run it through the countryside then you are ruining the countryside, if you run it through a built up area then you are ruining the community and giving all the kids cancer. That is why the only solution to pay people off, as it always has been for the entire history of electrical grids.

The idea she finds so worrying has been standard procedure for a hundred years.

[Tamas]

Not to say you are wrong in this specific case Sheilbh but size of the company isn't an argument against their participation in corruption.

[Sheilbh]

Not to say you are wrong in this specific case Sheilbh but size of the company isn't an argument against their participation in corruption.

I agree.

I think my point is more that Infosys are one of those companies, like Salesforce, Oracle - or for that matter the big 4 - who have clients in every sector. So I think you need actual facts in place of a line saying it's "more than a coincidence" that x policy benefits Infosys clients, because I think that would probably be true for an awful lot of policies.

Also just that they are listed and Sunak's wife has just under a 1% shareholding - and may inherit more if her dad dies. So whatever corrupt schemes are going on, in order to benefit Sunak, need to be sufficient to move their share price. I'm not sure £175 million worth of government contracts is it in a $20 billion revenue company.

Separately on Sunak and family links - there's an upcoming G20 in New Delhi (which is apparently going to be lavish) and apparently Number 10 are looking to add a wider visit to India and other locations (almost certainly Bengaluru which is where he was married and where his wife's family are from). It'll be really interesting to see the reception he gets in India, especially if they do the wider trip so it's not just the conference halls and leaders meetings of the G20.

[Gups]

Not to say you are wrong in this specific case Sheilbh but size of the company isn't an argument against their participation in corruption.

It's not conclusive but it's pretty persuasive. When the value of the alleged benefit us less than 0.1% of the turnover of the company concerned then you would be pretty surprised that executives are willing to risk corporate suicide for a marginal gain which will make no difference whatsoever to their bonuses.

[Tamas]

Not to say you are wrong in this specific case Sheilbh but size of the company isn't an argument against their participation in corruption.

It's not conclusive but it's pretty persuasive. When the value of the alleged benefit us less than 0.1% of the turnover of the company concerned then you would be pretty surprised that executives are willing to risk corporate suicide for a marginal gain which will make no difference whatsoever to their bonuses.

Well I do remember some German giants (was it Siemens?) getting into some massive corruption scandals a decade or two ago, for example. That did happen, and was not a suicide despite the big scandal.