Forum menu
Labour will ‘limit the number of branded items’ oh really.
In my childs school you have to have:
Polo shirts with the crest
Sweatshirts with the crest
The school coat (no others allowed)
P.E polo with crest
Sports shorts with crest
Rugby shirt with crest.
Not a private school btw! Instead of branded I think it should read 'crested'
I am not against a strict uniform policy but all the crested items cost me a fortune and it feels a bit pointless.
Well I know what the point is, its to make the school money.
What's wrong with a plain white or red or navy polo?
Does it really need to be a branded Fred perry proud boys jobbie?
I thought the 2017 and 2019 election manifestos were quite radical.
Yes, relatively they were. However my comment "over the last few years" doesn't include back then and I was referring to the Starmer Labour Party and what difference he would have made as it is his party calling it the Tory cost of living crisis.
**** the proud boys. I had that FP Polo and loved it, and then they decided it was their uniform. Now I can't wear it without looking like a white supremacist and in the end had to put it in for recycling.
In my childs school you have to have:
Polo shirts with the crest
Sweatshirts with the crest
The school coat (no others allowed)
P.E polo with crest
Sports shorts with crest
Rugby shirt with crest.
Not a private school btw! Instead of branded I think it should read crested
I assume these dubious and frankly ridiculous rules extend to the school dinner policy and only branded produce is provided. Birds eye fish fingers, Heinz baked beans, etc etc. Yeah right of course it does
Surely it is not enforceable?
One of the best swizes is updating the logo* or rules to kill off the second hand market and stop hand-me-downs from older family members.
[ the term "branding" is being used rather than "crest" for good reason ]
Remember having badges you could iron or sew onto a jumper or blazer of the right colour from any source...? I can't remember any branded school clothes at my secondary school beyond the school tie**. Was very different at the private school down the road... where the clothes were specialised and only available from one/two old fashioned shops. I guess that's where the trend spread from into state schools? Well, family budgets aren't the same in many state schools, and this is a real issue that needs addressing. Yes, it's thousands of places down the list of things to address ASAP, but it's easily understood by those with kids in school right now and there's no reason to ignore it because of other bigger priorities.
[ ** EDIT: there was a jersey for sports as well ]
Remember having badges you could iron or sew onto a jumper or blazer of the right colour from any source…? I can’t remember any branded school clothes at my secondary school beyond the school tie
Yup. At my school had a tie and then just the badge to get sewn on.
Anyone know how it works in terms of cash for all the new branded stuff? Does the supplier pay x percent back to the school?
But don't worry about jumpers and schools falling to bits - there will be money for this.
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1698380334323347924?t=sRlZoxSR41QpHNQWw6vf-g&s=19
He told the Mirror: “We've got new frigates being built ready for 2027. The percentage of British Steel in that is 4%. We would change that. I went to S****horpe to the steelworks up there a couple of months ago. The workforce up there are determined to go to green steel because they know that's where the orders.
“They just need a government that actually backs them in achieving that. They know that their own jobs and those of the next generation are bound up in having a government that actually has the foresight or strategic thinking and is gonna put its shoulder to the wheel of making sure that we have a steel industry of the future.”
Good. Government backing the shift to green steel, including using its purchasing power to push that. Should already be happening.
British Steel = a Chinese company making warships for Starmer.
You're simply endorsing the exact opposite.
There's **** all green about it.
In other news Liz Kendall. FFS.
Sorry, what are you proposing? Cancel the current builds, or not use the purchasing of materials for them to encourage green steel production in the UK as the builds progress?
I'm with rone on this.
Nice soundbite from Starmer but...it's bollocks on at least two fronts:
- British Steel is chinese owned
- green steel doesn't really exist in a meaningful way for volume production and that won't change for decades; hydrogen powered furnaces are mainly theoretical at present and electric arc furnaces are fossil fuel dependant to generate the electricity.
Then consider all of the iron ore is imported - probably from Australia or Brazil - in diesel powered bulk tankers.
If Starmer's going to say something it should be meaningful, relevant and honest.
Yes, S****horpe is foreign owned. All our steel industry is. And the company that is planning to provide the Hydrogen for green steel at S****horpe is owned by Norway. Green electricity will come from off-shore generators owned by Norway, France, China, Japan. Embracing the shift to green production in the UK will involve foreign owned companies if it is to happen fast and soon. Is falling further behind and just importing everything your answer? More UK owned involvement is also needed (whether that is private or state owned) but realistically that’s going to take longer to ramp up… any kind of sizeable impact by 2027 needs the existing foreign owned players onboard. The alternative is no UK steel production and too slow a switch to low and lower carbon industry in the UK. We still want industry in the UK, yes? And we want it to with a reduced carbon impact, yes?
The notion that hydrogen from Norway will have a meaningful impact on reducing fossil fuel generated energy used in making steel in S****horpe is nonsense - and that won't change for a long time.
The current volume producer in Norway has a theoretical capacity of 270MW/40,000 tonnes.
In it's first year under Jingye's ownership the S****horpe plant produced 2.6 million tonnes of steel.
The most optimistic assumption is that 4MW of hydrogen power will be required to produce 1 tonne of steel so...crunch the numbers.
Equinor and RWE have signed heads of terms for a hydrogen JV - but that's all.
As for projected costs of developing and building large scale hydrogen plants they are absolutely colossal.
Will post some numbers when I have time - and will address your comments about wind power.
Let me be clear - the UK desparately needs an industrial strategy but doesn't have one; a meaningful industrial strategy requires strong and clear direction with very heavy investment.
The tories don't know where to start and Starmer has said nothing to persuade me he would do much better.
The hydrogen wouldn’t be from Norway. It would be domestically produced by a company with majority Norway ownership. For steel production to continue (and increase) in the UK, and make use of that planned hydrogen supply, and the planned increase in off-shore wind, needs a government to make sure buyers that are down chain of public spending use it over imports. Especially if those imports are still using traditional high carbon emission energy production. No point exporting our carbon emissions and killing of our remaining industry. Yes, everything to do with greener UK steel is all “planned” and not yet available… but a possible future government signally they will be part of it all is essential to developing it.
kelvin - it's all pie in the sky.
No UK government has shown much, if any, ability to plan.
Failing to plan = planning to fail.
Why is there a need for a possible future hydrogen generator in the UK to be majority Norwegian owned?
Could it be the absence of a UK industrial strategy and a government which won't invest meaningfully in developing future technologies?
So, back to the numbers - Jingye Steel in S****horpe would use 10.4 million tonnes of a hydrogen a year to maintain it's current production.
The biggest hydrogen plant in Norway has a theoretical maximum output of 40,000 tpa so the UK is looking at something with 265 times more capacity.
Yeah, right.
In other news Liz Kendall. FFS.
Yep, if it wasn't over already it definitely is now. Glad I no longer support the Labour Party as they really are a ****ing disgrace now.
The voters really will be voting between two tory parties but listening to Wes Streeting last night on C4 news that is what they have heard people want and they don't want the traditional Labour stuff.
In the latest ipsos poll Labour's lead over the Tories has increased to 20% :
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/almost-9-10-say-britain-needs-fresh-team-leaders
However Starmer's lead over Sunak, with respect to who would make the most capable Prime Minister, remains at 4%. Considering how unpopular the Tories are currently it is surprising that Starmer doesn't have a significant lead over Sunak in terms of prime ministerial material.
Even I who hasn't much confidence in his prime ministerial qualities believe that Starmer will make a more capable PM than Sunak.
What makes it especially surprising is that the the Parliamentary Labour Party is so solidly behind Starmer, and barely a murmur of criticism is ever heard.
Also worrying for Labour is that almost half (47%) believe that they are out of touch with ordinary people - up 14%
Edit: The ipsos link doesn't seem to be working correctly for some reason. Here is a link to the Evening Standard's report of the ipsos poll:
Yesterday I was agreeing with Dumbojo on the environment now I’m liking what starmer says
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-we-dont-want-to-diverge-from-eu-says-sir-keir-starmer-12966338
What makes it especially surprising is that the the Parliamentary Labour Party is so solidly behind Starmer, and barely a murmur of criticism is ever heard.
I wonder why that would be? I'm truly stumped.
Yesterday I was agreeing with Dumbojo on the environment now I’m liking what starmer says
Well Rishi Sunak is very much on the right of the Tory Party (although for reasons which I don't fully understand many seem to believe otherwise and appear to think that he is merely attempting to appease right-wing Tories) So you don't have to be particularly left-wing to be at odds with him.
Something which both Johnson and Starmer can manage to do fairly easily!
A little follow up to Zippy’s post and link…
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1708523547692310954?t=2D08QlQ2UdQpb-xK0FONgA&s=19
Even I can't get my head around this one.
Well there you go.
Snap election Territory.
Publicity. the more a politician is in the news no matter what for their vote goes up
Its also margins of error - the differnce between last poll and this is well within the margins of error
Sunak's in touch with you, Jo Motorist. It's having a small effect.
Some conservative swing voters have forgotten all about him borrowing someone else's "normal" car to fill up with fuel, and not knowing how to pay for it. Do we think he ever drives himself anywhere, ever? These attempts to pretend to be in touch with the little people would never float without the help of the papers (and other media that follows them).
Not sure. I would have expected stuff to have got way worse for the Tories recently.
And as for margin of error there's polls showing 24+ leads. That's a big margin.
Tax cuts tax cuts blah blah.
Hopefully it will put a rocket up Starmer's arse to define a difference.
Sunak’s in touch with you, Jo Motorist. It’s having a small effect.
For sure, short memory syndrome is a thing in the UK.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1708768791176290781?t=snYxr4-3pGyHuH0vA-orfg&s=19
And as for margin of error there’s polls showing 24+ leads. That’s a big margin.
Polls use different methodology. to track a trend you either need to average them all or follow one only. comparing one poll companies results with another does not work
Most polls claim an accuracy of 2 or 3% IIRC so 3% is just within margins of error
also rounding. the previous one may have been 41.6% and the current one 39.4%. so just over 2% differnce. round it and it looks like 3%
That's good news Ernie. I for one hope Labour double down on the switch away from fossil fuels... (ie listen to Miliband) but fear that despite surveys like that one you've posted they'll be timid about putting even their existing plans (which are way beyond what the Tories are offering) front and centre. We'll see come their conference...
[ those currently saying they'll vote Labour next time might well be citing climate change as a live issue for them, but those returning to the Tories in recent polls might be all for Sunaks' pro fossil fuel industry agenda ]
[ some iffy journalism in there...
Head: "Tory swing voters switch to Labour after Sunak’s green retreat, poll finds"
Subhead : "Survey shows nearly 90% of 2019 Conservative voters say green industry is vital to UK’s economic growth"
Neither of which is backed up by the detail : "Almost nine in 10 voters who intend to switch their support from Conservative to Labour candidates in the next general election believe that “green growth” is important for the future of Britain’s economy, according to a poll."
The polling doesn't show switching "after" Sunak's dumping of green targets. And it doesn't show that 90% of Conservative voters say any such thing about a green economy, only that 90% of voters saying they'll switch to Labour do.
]
I for one hope Labour double down on the switch away from fossil fuels…
I hope they don't. They need to focus on one thing and one thing only, the cost of living. If they can sell net zero as a way to bring that down then fine, but otherwise they should steer well clear of the climate issue. If they are smart they'll abandon their ridiculous promise to spend bugger all and announce a scheme to help working people switch to electric cars with a massive scrappage scheme and price caps on electricity bills to charge them so they can argue that driving will be cheaper under labour than the tories.
announce a scheme to help working people switch to electric cars with a massive scrappage scheme and price caps on electricity bills to charge them
No, this is a terrible use of funds. They need a huge programme of on-street charging rollout and city centre fast charging hubs that are really cheap for people with no on-street parking. The cars will make their way down the market of their own accord. Making EVs super cheap will heavily penalise those who can't charge at home, which includes a lot of lower income households.
I’d like Molgrip’s post… but the like button/counter seems to have gone AWOL.
IMO the majority of people like the idea of EVs and would happily drive one, so I don't think a lot needs to be done in terms of demand.
IMO the majority of people couldn't care less where the power of their car comes from as long as it's convenient.
I'm with you though, the coal stations are all but gone and gas prices have only gone one way. Energy prices could easily be fixed with market reform leaving plenty of funding for efficiency measures and green initiatives.
Depends what you expect MOlgrips. If you have any expectations of anything much I think you will be disappointed. I think far too many folk have wishful thinking about Starmer.
Yeah don't count on it.
As per TJ.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1709950861286183056?t=CIKwGp3iJJGz3_gjzyv6OQ&s=19
The good news is that Starmer is lazer-focused on "better connectivity".
And although the Tories are using wrecking ball tactics Starmer would "bulldoze through the barriers" in the way of house building if elected at the next general election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67016873
The main problem with Starmer is that - being a reasonable, compromising, nerd - he thinks that merely being sensible and responsible is enough to win an election and govern. imvho people want action and the hopey-changey stuff.
announce a scheme to help working people switch to electric cars with a massive scrappage scheme and price caps on electricity bills
Free stuff for everyone!
Free stuff for everyone!
It's never about what is free or what needs to be paid for but what a government can do with the power of the state in the face of what the private sector will never do successfully.
That is the purpose of the state.
It is also why we are in such a dismal mess pretending (lying) that the private sector must generate money for the state before we fix anything.
How many more failures do we need before we realise that it will come down to the government to fix many of the faults of lack of investment - just about everywhere you look.
Waiting for the private sector to show up and bail the state out is not how it works.
That is the purpose of the state.
To even further subsidise car purchases for people with off road parking? Strange priority. A focus on investment in renewables, the grid and a shared public charging network would be preferable. You see, decisions about where money is spent, and where it is recovered, is still the job of government. No economic theory removes that role. You can’t do everything everywhere all at once. Reality is waiting for any politician that thinks otherwise.