FlyTheNest

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -elon-musk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The car is dead, long live the car, thanks to Tesla
John Naughton

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... hievements" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Congress adjourns for summer recess with skimpy record for Republicans
After Labor Day conservative lawmakers are likely to forgo more healthcare debate to take up tax reform and two legislative housekeeping musts

Duly TO'd. Thanks!

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inde ... businesses" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Press release
Independent review to ensure energy is affordable for households and businesses

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... om-hackers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


News story
New generation of smart cars will now be better protected from hackers


Principles of cyber security for connected and automated vehicles

Waiting for my invitation to the What to do with the Tories ideas festival,I have a few.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... 7-protests" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


In 1967, they watched their city erupt. Fifty years on, how has Detroit changed?

HindleA wrote:Waiting for my invitation to the What to do with the Tories ideas festival,I have a few.

the Sacred Picnic Ritual

Good-afternoon, everyone

Shall we say the changes to the Times subscription basis has not gone down well with the crossword solving community.

"Never underestimate the power of cruciverbalists"

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... 7-protests


In 1967, they watched their city erupt. Fifty years on, how has Detroit changed?

A lot fewer people??

Guardian crosswords were subscription some years ago,it didn't last long.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... 12m-profit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trailfinders blames Brexit vote for wiping out £12m profit



Set up by a former SAS guy.

HindleA wrote:"Never underestimate the power of cruciverbalists"

heh, I had to run 'cruciverbalists' through a translation program

HindleA wrote:"Never underestimate the power of cruciverbalists"

Good Afternoon........

How many letters?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ck-timothy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew D'Ancona "The Tories need fresh ideas"

The D'Ancona piece is worth read I'd say.

It feels a bit like an echo from Labour's struggles of the last few years. How can they break away from the Thatcher era while remaining electable? The fear of moving away from the neoliberal consensus.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ck-timothy

Matthew D'Ancona "The Tories need fresh ideas"

fresh ideas for Tory MPs listed below

1) join a wholesome political party and work for the benefit of all people and country
2) resign and go away
3) share all their money and property with everyone
4) get jobs as care workers (with the stipulation they're to be shadowed by at least two experienced care workers)
5) ride bicycles, walk and use public transportation only
6) examine their conscience and rectify their errors without expecting a reward for doing so

Housing is key for the Tories, and Labour.

There is a policy mix that is sensible and attainable, but neither party want to pursue. Labour still seems to favour publicly built housing, which is impossible where need is greatest and distributionally unfair for the unlucky majority who dont benefit. The Tories seem hamstrung by nimbyism.

There is no center ground party that could seriously tackle the problem.

UK politics in one issue.

citizenJA wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ck-timothy

Matthew D'Ancona "The Tories need fresh ideas"

fresh ideas for Tory MPs listed below

1) join a wholesome political party and work for the benefit of all people and country
2) resign and go away
3) share all their money and property with everyone
4) get jobs as care workers (with the stipulation they're to be shadowed by at least two experienced care workers)
5) ride bicycles, walk and use public transportation only
6) examine their conscience and rectify their errors without expecting a reward for doing so

Indeed!

There may however be a place for a conservative party. D'Ancona mentions the idea of taxing wealth instead of income. I think this is probably long overdue, but it's very hard for Labor to actually do it. We were discussing this a few weeks back. There are some things that the apparently more unlikely party is able to progress.

SpinningHugo wrote:Housing is key for the Tories, and Labour.

There is a policy mix that is sensible and attainable, but neither party want to pursue. Labour still seems to favour publicly built housing, which is impossible where need is greatest and distributionally unfair for the unlucky majority who dont benefit. The Tories seem hamstrung by nimbyism.

There is no center ground party that could seriously tackle the problem.

UK politics in one issue.

Taxing wealth would help wouldn't it? And if you hypothecated those tax receipts for new public housing it might seem rather acceptable to many folk?

Health service reform is another "only Nixon can go to China" issue. Only Labour could actually reform any area of the NHS, the Tories aren't trusted.

Not that Labour as now led has anything other than 1970s answers.

In the 1970's the State recognised that the fundumentally shift of decarceration and treatment in community/at home had to be accounted for.Many of today's issues stem from historical amnesia and the regression of both thought and practice from that.



Edited rogue k removal.

IE cost/burden rather than investment.

Not particulary a party thing,shall we say the agreed consensus went awry,Labour showing signs of retrieval.

A third of receivers of social care are non pensioners.In own home is fundamentally different to in a home and serves totally different purposes;retention of work,carers breaks,facillitates otherwise hospital treatments,a personal assistant for driving purposes for shopping,appointments,independence,choice eg.rather than going to a day centre 50 weeks a year because otherwise you won't meet people,regardless of applicabilty,maybe you don't want to be segregated,you organise a break for yourself and p.a.somewhere which makes the Torygraph go apoplectic with rage at the sheer cost saving and non conformity to not being pathetic creatures to be patronised.The scandal of it.

Hence I am extremely uneasy at the generational fairness line,but I don't like the continual "comparative fairness"in general.It led to justifying a default position on necessary rooms as being chargeable.

HindleA wrote:Hence I am extremely uneasy at the generational fairness line,but I don't like the continual "comparative fairness"in general.It led to justifying a default position on necessary rooms as being chargeable.

myth of scarcity combined with divisive lingo

I would argue in own home facillitation is a cost saving investment.

It is quite difficult to ascertain the best way to charge,because of possible consequences eg.if on weekly income alone it may penalise those in work/work possibility,given it facillitates by its provision to then increase/adjust to the situation is not sensible,hence why it is not counted at all in calculations.

Which may lead to "perceived unfairness" of being charged the same but better off.

SpinningHugo wrote:Health service reform is another "only Nixon can go to China" issue. Only Labour could actually reform any area of the NHS, the Tories aren't trusted.

Not that Labour as now led has anything other than 1970s answers.

If the last few years have demonstrated anything, it is that in many cases "1970s answers" have more to be said for them than the conventional wisdom since then has assumed.

Though I think it is an unfair assessment anyway, this years Labour manifesto was the first in our lifetimes to even float the idea of land taxation - potentially HUGE.

HindleA wrote:Not particulary a party thing,shall we say the agreed consensus went awry,Labour showing signs of retrieval.

Lack of a commitment to consensus politics is the problem, to my mind, not the lack of a centrist party.

Providing quality, cost effective social care for all shouldn't be a politically contentious aim. Although there are different ways to go about it, you would expect a consensus on the basic idea of providing it. And from there a willingness to come to a cross party agreement on long term changes.

When you have one party that believes the state should do virtually nothing and another party that believes the state should do virtually everything, there is little likelihood of consensus. Because the argument isn't over "how" an aim should be achieved, it's over whether the aim should even be pursued at all.

Democracy evolved as a way to settle relatively small differences in approach among people of relatively homogeneous cultural identity and outlook. The concept of consensus politics recognises this limitation of democracy and understands the need to win broad agreement on major issues through persuasive argument.

A social care plan, whatever it may be, needs to address the potential needs of most people and to address the needs of society as a whole. And the whole of parliament needs to be committed to this as a broad concept.

It is my opinion that it is not the Tories' approach, with their obsession with inefficient privatisation, that is the real problem. The real problem is they seem no longer interested in providing social care at all. The broad consensus on what the state should and shouldn't do has broken down. I'm really not sure what the solution to this is. All I know is that political polarisation entrenches a culture of "winners" and "losers" at the expense of the idea of collaborative effort bringing universal rewards.

Cameron and Osborne's small state extremism has been really quite severe. And mostly pursued without the informed consent of the electorate. Their disdain for democracy was quite appalling. May in comparison just seems hapless. Not that that makes her much better.

By which I mean, devolving responsibility for provision of certain public services to local councils without devolving the necessary money to provide them. In effect it is withdrawal of state provision, but bypasses parliamentary approval for that withdrawal.

The privatisations of the 80's and the TV campaigns to galvanise public support for them seem almost honest by comparison.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Health service reform is another "only Nixon can go to China" issue. Only Labour could actually reform any area of the NHS, the Tories aren't trusted.

Not that Labour as now led has anything other than 1970s answers.

If the last few years have demonstrated anything, it is that in many cases "1970s answers" have more to be said for them than the conventional wisdom since then has assumed.

Though I think it is an unfair assessment anyway, this years Labour manifesto was the first in our lifetimes to even float the idea of land taxation - potentially HUGE.

Network Rail is pretty 1970s. Fully nationalized, strong unions, borrowed tons of money in the old fashioned way- but hardly looks like a success.

I think the increase to £100,000 for in a home situation coupled with equalising for in own home(despite cost savng/independent enhancing advantages)rather speaks to their thinking/priorities.Consistent, they exempted rooms for care,for non resident overwhelmingly paid workers but not for residents doing exactly the same.Pretty clear to me,even in symbolic terms it is a continual kick in the nether regions for the targeted.

Willow904 wrote:By which I mean, devolving responsibility for provision of certain public services to local councils without devolving the necessary money to provide them. In effect it is withdrawal of state provision, but bypasses parliamentary approval for that withdrawal.

The privatisations of the 80's and the TV campaigns to galvanise public support for them seem almost honest by comparison.

The killer, I think, was the council tax limit imposed by Pickles. It's hard for Labour to run on people paying more council tax- Corbyn's "brave" manifesto hid behind the fiction that "business" would be paying for the extra stuff- but in some areas they could have run on small increases to mitigate stuff. They did in Wales, and didn't seem to pay too much of a price.

@Willow,I would merely say,it depends on "the consensus"for me.Certainly,I am not enamoured by the framing of the general debate by politicos.

Willow904 wrote: It is my opinion that it is not the Tories' approach, with their obsession with inefficient privatisation, that is the real problem. The real problem is they seem no longer interested in providing social care at all. The broad consensus on what the state should and shouldn't do has broken down. I'm really not sure what the solution to this is.

30-40% of the population seem to agree with that.
IMO the solution is electoral reform, so the tories can never have an overall majority to push through their nasty agenda again.
I accept that PR would mean Labour would also be constrained, I can't see any other way.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: Network Rail is pretty 1970s. Fully nationalized, strong unions, borrowed tons of money in the old fashioned way- but hardly looks like a success.

Nobody's died for a while though.

Still working on becoming a benign Supreme Leader,not sure if a garden ornament counts as a seconder.

gilsey wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote: Network Rail is pretty 1970s. Fully nationalized, strong unions, borrowed tons of money in the old fashioned way- but hardly looks like a success.

Nobody's died for a while though.

They've got an excellent safety record, but it's certainly cost. A few other parts of government could have saved a few lives with the money Network Rail's had. Just within transport, a few very dangerous roads could have been improved.

HindleA wrote:@Willow,I would merely say,it depends on "the consensus"for me.Certainly,I am not enamoured by the framing of the general debate by politicos.

Aye, there's the rub and why democracy only works when there is a real commitment to make it work in the interests of all.

And the bigger the polarisation, for instance between the secular and the religious outlooks as we have seen in Turkey, the more the limitations of democracy become apparent.

Well done Langford

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... it-rollout" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... vulnerable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bloody hell.

Remember to dip

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... vulnerable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Stunning early panorama photos of a lost Alaska