The Cost Of Living Crisis

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

20 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

But when a dictator with history of hostile and aggressive action against his neighbours invades a sovereign nation almost on our doorstep should we just accept it?  We haven’t caused his invasion and we aren’t directly fighting against it.  What we’re doing is giving support to the invaded nation whilst imposing sanctions on Putin, which obviously comes at a price to us, and which the vast majority seemed to support at the time that they were announced.

Of course we shouldn't accept it. It appears to me though that the same attitude prevails with us with what we criticised the US for in 1940. Its not our war but we will lend you some weapons.

We pretend we are great nations sat at the table of the UN Security Council and then run scared when Russia flexes its muscles. We have probably missed our chance of showing that so much of the World will stand up to nations with aspirations of evil. Then that may well serve notice on China as well.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

10 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Of course we shouldn't accept it. It appears to me though that the same attitude prevails with us with what we criticised the US for in 1940. Its not our war but we will lend you some weapons.

We pretend we are great nations sat at the table of the UN Security Council and then run scared when Russia flexes its muscles. We have probably missed our chance of showing that so much of the World will stand up to nations with aspirations of evil. Then that may well serve notice on China as well.

The members of the UN Permanent security council are permanent members because, if any one of them throws their toys out of the pram, they have the capacity to start a global nuclear war. That's why any one of them can veto any security resolution.

The scariest prospect of direct conventional conflict between NATO and Russia, in my view, is that the humiliation of Russia would be so utterly comprehensive that I would start to be concerned whether Russia might consider bringing out the nukes. 

On the other hand, we've handed Ukraine extensive hi-tech weaponry that is increasingly giving them an edge over Russia, to the point that Ukraine has started an offensive to retake Kherson, while more broadly the front lines of conflict are pretty much static, and Russia has not directly escalated against us  in response to that, which tells us that continuing down this road does open the door to diplomacy being back on the table again at some point if we keep supporting Ukraine with the right weapons. 

For us, it's really down to a battle of wills and how much we can adapt to the issues of Russian gas not being available, against how much economic pain Russia can withstand from sanctions as well as how many dead soldiers Russian people will tolerate in a pointless war, which are apparently in the region of 80,000 now. 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

I'm fortunate I chose to fix my electricity prices for two years close to a year ago. And if the pandemic hadn't made me realise my fairly minimalist approach to things has kept my living expenses very low, this absolutely did.

It's also ultimately reinforced my childfree status to boot.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

On 27/08/2022 at 20:16, littleyellowbirdie said:

Oh my God, this has to be the most disingenuous argument against the monarchy, from a republican point of view, ever. You're literally arguing that the Queen should have stepped in on a relatively minor, and unprovable point in a piece of political gamesmanship because it just so happened that it suited what you'd have liked to have seen happen and then implying the existence of the monarchy means we're not a proper democracy. Talk about disjointed. 

Written constitutions are no panacea to anything. On the contrary, they can often mean you're restricted to antiquated rules centuries old and can never evolve: the second amendment of the US constitution and the constitutional role of the Catholic church in Ireland are two such examples of things that each country would be well rid of, but is unable to do anything about. 

 

 

Total b*llocks and frankly being accused of being disingenuous, by you of all people, immediately brings images of pots and kettles to mind.

I absolutely am saying that the Queen should have stepped to have prevented an abuse of our political process which was anything but minor - i.e. she should have done her job as our Head of State responsibly in the national interest. But this isn't an 'argument' against the Monarchy per se , but simply the most recent and egregrious example of HRM not taking her role as Head of State seriously.

TBF the monarch gets lumbered with an awful lot of roles, I mean it makes no sense that the monarch is Head of the CoE for example but equally I couldn't care less about that sort of historical nonsense, so if the monarchy want that gig then they're welcome to it.

But I do care about having a totally ineffective Head of State because that job is far too important to be left to a rubber stamp machine in a Buckingham Palace office.

I did not imply that we are not a proper democracy because of the existence of the monarchy, that is you simply making up stuff again what I said was "Our whole 'democratic' system is dysfunctional and whilst the monarchy is only a small part of that it is a crucial part. " 

Our whole democratic system is dysfunctional - get it?

Quite straightforward if you stick with what I wrote rather than your own embellishments. Yes I did say the monarch was a critical part but not a major part - critical because the monarch is the backstop if things go badly wrong. So most of the time so you don't need them at all but then when you do need them and they go missing.........its critical.

Nor did I claim that a written constitution was a panacea - you constructing straw men again - what  I said was that it was one of two pre-requisites as starting points for us to make improvements, so you can stick your sweeping and glib dismissal of your own straw man where the sun doesn't shine.

And the rest of final paragraph is absolutely hilarious suggesting that a written constition "can often mean you're restricted to antiquated rules centuries old and can never evolve" whilst defending our own unwritten constitution which is the most ancient of all, has barely evolved in 250 years and not at all in the last 100 years. We might well agree at the US would be better without the 2nd amendment but its existence along with 26 others (or 30 if you count the pendiing ones) shows quite clearly that evolution of written constitutions is entirely possible, even in the US version and most modern democracries have written constitutions which include very clear definitions of how those constitutions can (and are) updated.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

52 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Total b*llocks and frankly being accused of being disingenuous, by you of all people, immediately brings images of pots and kettles to mind.

I absolutely am saying that the Queen should have stepped to have prevented an abuse of our political process which was anything but minor - i.e. she should have done her job as our Head of State responsibly in the national interest. But this isn't an 'argument' against the Monarchy per se , but simply the most recent and egregrious example of HRM not taking her role as Head of State seriously.

TBF the monarch gets lumbered with an awful lot of roles, I mean it makes no sense that the monarch is Head of the CoE for example but equally I couldn't care less about that sort of historical nonsense, so if the monarchy want that gig then they're welcome to it.

But I do care about having a totally ineffective Head of State because that job is far too important to be left to a rubber stamp machine in a Buckingham Palace office.

I did not imply that we are not a proper democracy because of the existence of the monarchy, that is you simply making up stuff again what I said was "Our whole 'democratic' system is dysfunctional and whilst the monarchy is only a small part of that it is a crucial part. " 

Our whole democratic system is dysfunctional - get it?

Quite straightforward if you stick with what I wrote rather than your own embellishments. Yes I did say the monarch was a critical part but not a major part - critical because the monarch is the backstop if things go badly wrong. So most of the time so you don't need them at all but then when you do need them and they go missing.........its critical.

Nor did I claim that a written constitution was a panacea - you constructing straw men again - what  I said was that it was one of two pre-requisites as starting points for us to make improvements, so you can stick your sweeping and glib dismissal of your own straw man where the sun doesn't shine.

And the rest of final paragraph is absolutely hilarious suggesting that a written constition "can often mean you're restricted to antiquated rules centuries old and can never evolve" whilst defending our own unwritten constitution which is the most ancient of all, has barely evolved in 250 years and not at all in the last 100 years. We might well agree at the US would be better without the 2nd amendment but its existence along with 26 others (or 30 if you count the pendiing ones) shows quite clearly that evolution of written constitutions is entirely possible, even in the US version and most modern democracries have written constitutions which include very clear definitions of how those constitutions can (and are) updated.

 

A republican who supposedly wants the queen to jump in and tell elected politicians what they can and can't do after republicans do, as a whole, generally have a strong record of attacking the monarchy at every opportunity where there has been the slightest sniff of stepping into politics is simply laughable. Everybody describes us as a ceremonial monarchy for the most part. If we were to get a politician who was actually trying to flip us into being a totalitarian state, then the monarchy is a genuine safety valve there given that the Queen is the head of the armed forces. This in contrast to countries where it's left to anonymous generals to decide where they want to weigh in, or maybe just take over themselves, as has been the case in places like Egypt, Pakistan, and Myanmar. But arguing that an iffy proroguement is comparable to that level of constitutional crisis is simply laughable. 

You were arguing to scrap an unwritten constitution; this is the same thing as arguing for a written constitution, which makes it entirely legitimate to mention issues of written constitutions without there being any suggestion of straw man arguments. 

The value of the monarchy in diplomatic and marketing terms is enormous. This has been the subject of countless analyses by brand management organisations supporting it. I'd show you some links, but of course it's all just 'opinions' and apparently opinions are of no more value for being expert ones on here, so I won't waste my time and suggest you just google 'monarchy brand value' and do a bit of reading yourself if you're interested. 

And the flaw of the amendment system in a constitution is that they're easy to add, but very difficult to remove again, as illustrated by the States. 

Top tip: If you don't want to look like you're implying there's something fundamentally illegitimate about our democracy, as opposed to simply not working very well, avoid putting unnecessary quotation marks around 'democracy'. 

Overall, disbanding the monarchy would be trivial in terms of overhauling UK democratic processes. Our FPTP system would be every bit as dysfunctional without the monarchy as with it. Electoral reform for Westminster to a proportional system is the key to dealing with the failures of representation. In the meantime, the affection of the majority for the monarch throughout the nation is probably one of the few unifying things in the UK these days. 

PS: On the subject of the prorogation of parliament, the prorogation of parliament was legally challenged and ultimately quashed by unanimous decision of the supreme court as unlawful; the checks and balances of the judiciary were perfectly satisfactory without the monarch intervening. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

5 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

PS: On the subject of the prorogation of parliament, the prorogation of parliament was legally challenged and ultimately quashed by unanimous decision of the supreme court as unlawful; the checks and balances of the judiciary were perfectly satisfactory without the monarch intervening. 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9006/

Supreme Court ruling

The UK Supreme Court heard appeals from both jurisdictions. It ruled unanimously that the prerogative power of prorogation was justiciable. However, in finding the prorogation was unlawful, it set out the legal test in different terms than those of the Scottish court.

The Supreme Court maintained that this long prorogation significantly interfered with the constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary accountability. Such an interference required a “reasonable justification”. On the facts the Court concluded the Government had not offered any justification for the prorogation’s length, let alone a “reasonable” one, and accordingly the decision to prorogue was unlawful.

[kick it off 1,948]

Putting the topic back on track - I'm moving in to a place on my own (most of the time) in the next week or two so have been looking at ways I can potentially save some cash, particularly in terms of energy usage. 

I dont use a lot of energy anyway but these are the things that I have found/found out that will help me keep the costs down as much as possible.

Tumble driers are expensive to run, but lots of people feel drying racks leave clothes damp etc (I'm one of them). You can buy heated drying racks, or even heated "pods" which are basically drying racks with a cover that goes round the clothes and a heater and fan combo underneath to circulate the warm air. Both of these options are a fraction of the running costs of tumble driers. The pod systems dry clothes in about 2.5 hours. Heated clothes racks come in at about 40 or 50 quid. Pod systems are around 80. Dehumidifiers are also a good option here apparently and help clothes dry much quicker whether using a heated rack, pod, or just a normal rack.

Air fryers are incredibly cost effective if you're cooking smaller meals or for one/two people as they're essentially mini convection ovens so do the same job but due to much smaller size, they use much less energy to heat. You can cook directly from frozen in them and there is a lot of people who say the food tastes far better etc. Lots of recipes etc online. They cost around 30-40 quid.  Obviously the other option here is batch cooking as microwaves also use negligible amounts of energy and you are essentially cooking several meals at once in the oven or on the hob.

Heating the house is clearly going to be the biggest concern for most people. Difficult for those with families to get around this, but for single people or those living with just one other person, heated blankets cost almost nothing to run, can be picked up for around 30 pounds or so and will keep things cosy enough. Getting out from under it might be a bit of a shock to the system but it's an effective way to stay warm without spending money heating the whole house.

Edited August 30, 2022 by kick it off

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

6 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

A republican who supposedly wants the queen to jump in and tell elected politicians what they can and can't do after republicans do, as a whole, generally have a strong record of attacking the monarchy at every opportunity where there has been the slightest sniff of stepping into politics is simply laughable. Everybody describes us as a ceremonial monarchy for the most part. If we were to get a politician who was actually trying to flip us into being a totalitarian state, then the monarchy is a genuine safety valve there given that the Queen is the head of the armed forces. This in contrast to countries where it's left to anonymous generals to decide where they want to weigh in, or maybe just take over themselves, as has been the case in places like Egypt, Pakistan, and Myanmar. But arguing that an iffy proroguement is comparable to that level of constitutional crisis is simply laughable. 

You were arguing to scrap an unwritten constitution; this is the same thing as arguing for a written constitution, which makes it entirely legitimate to mention issues of written constitutions without there being any suggestion of straw man arguments. 

The value of the monarchy in diplomatic and marketing terms is enormous. This has been the subject of countless analyses by brand management organisations supporting it. I'd show you some links, but of course it's all just 'opinions' and apparently opinions are of no more value for being expert ones on here, so I won't waste my time and suggest you just google 'monarchy brand value' and do a bit of reading yourself if you're interested. 

And the flaw of the amendment system in a constitution is that they're easy to add, but very difficult to remove again, as illustrated by the States. 

Top tip: If you don't want to look like you're implying there's something fundamentally illegitimate about our democracy, as opposed to simply not working very well, avoid putting unnecessary quotation marks around 'democracy'. 

Overall, disbanding the monarchy would be trivial in terms of overhauling UK democratic processes. Our FPTP system would be every bit as dysfunctional without the monarchy as with it. Electoral reform for Westminster to a proportional system is the key to dealing with the failures of representation. In the meantime, the affection of the majority for the monarch throughout the nation is probably one of the few unifying things in the UK these days. 

PS: On the subject of the prorogation of parliament, the prorogation of parliament was legally challenged and ultimately quashed by unanimous decision of the supreme court as unlawful; the checks and balances of the judiciary were perfectly satisfactory without the monarch intervening. 

More waffly b*llocks, no wonder some one compared you to JRM the other day 😂

I did not want the Queen tto 'jump in' - our unwritten constitution demands that the PM is required to gain the monarch's approval to prorogue Parliament and that he has to provide a justification for her to give her permission.

He didn't have a valid  justification, he wanted to suspend our 'democracy' because he wanted to prevent the HoC making any decisions that didn't suit him, and so instead he offered the Queen a set of very obvious and clear lies.

As the Supreme Court belatedly confirmed, the request from Johnson didn't go anywhere near the justiifiable and the Queen should have refused it - it is very straightforward and simple. The justification provided by Johnson was a pack of lies, that must have been clear to both the Queen and her advisors at the time. No jumping of any sort was required - she simply needed to refuse Johnson's unjustified request to properly discharge her constitutional responsiblities as our Head of State but for reasons which have never been explained she failed to do the right and appropriate thing.

But she didn't and the constitutional checks and balances were totally unsatisfactory - Johnson still succeeded in the fraudulent suspension of our democracy for the time he needed and suffered no consequences whatsoever for a gross violation of our constitution. So I'm afraid that your notion that in a real crisis the Queen would act as a safety value (as she is supposed to) is quite ridiculous - this was a real crisis and she blew it if you'll pardon the pun 😂

Oh, and on the subject of our dysfunctional 'democracy' and our FPTP  system I made that point very clearly in my earlier post but both your responses have studiously avoided that as you respond again to a load of stuff I didn't say rather than what I actually did say - disingenuous?? I think you need to look closer to home.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

I do wonder if there’s a way they could have a tiered system of caps, so your first few quid in energy is heavily subsidised so everyone has the basics but as you demand more, you pay the going rate so if you want to keep the heated pool on, fine, but you pay the going rate.

this way, frugal, working class people can at least afford to exist and also the government isn’t left horrendously out of pocket?

bit of that, a huge campaign of insulation/providing our own energy through renewables and opening up our existing places again like Drax etc. and the VAT decrease and we’re good to go right?

[kick it off 1,948]

10 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

I do wonder if there’s a way they could have a tiered system of caps, so your first few quid in energy is heavily subsidised so everyone has the basics but as you demand more, you pay the going rate so if you want to keep the heated pool on, fine, but you pay the going rate.

this way, frugal, working class people can at least afford to exist and also the government isn’t left horrendously out of pocket?

bit of that, a huge campaign of insulation/providing our own energy through renewables and opening up our existing places again like Drax etc. and the VAT decrease and we’re good to go right?

Most sensible solution I've seen. If you coupled this with the energy industry's plan to essentially have a scheme whereby prices are capped now (at the april 2022 rate), and we repay the money over the next 10 years so when prices do come down again, we're still fixed at essentially the rate they have been this year, to repay the deficit, then I think we could navigate this crisis fairly sensibly.

But Liz Truss will be in charge so doubtful any kind of sensible solutions will be employed.

Edited August 30, 2022 by kick it off

[Van wink 2,994]

26 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

I do wonder if there’s a way they could have a tiered system of caps, so your first few quid in energy is heavily subsidised so everyone has the basics but as you demand more, you pay the going rate so if you want to keep the heated pool on, fine, but you pay the going rate.

this way, frugal, working class people can at least afford to exist and also the government isn’t left horrendously out of pocket?

bit of that, a huge campaign of insulation/providing our own energy through renewables and opening up our existing places again like Drax etc. and the VAT decrease and we’re good to go right?

Good idea, a bit like the tax free allowance. 

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

3 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Good idea, a bit like the tax free allowance. 

That is though in reality no different (just needs increasing) in what we've got at present - up the £400 hand-out (yes Truss - that's what it will be) to say £2000 or whatever for everybody (and as monthly credit off bills). 

[Naturalcynic 629]

44 minutes ago, kick it off said:

Putting the topic back on track - I'm moving in to a place on my own (most of the time) in the next week or two so have been looking at ways I can potentially save some cash, particularly in terms of energy usage. 

I dont use a lot of energy anyway but these are the things that I have found/found out that will help me keep the costs down as much as possible.

Tumble driers are expensive to run, but lots of people feel drying racks leave clothes damp etc (I'm one of them). You can buy heated drying racks, or even heated "pods" which are basically drying racks with a cover that goes round the clothes and a heater and fan combo underneath to circulate the warm air. Both of these options are a fraction of the running costs of tumble driers. The pod systems dry clothes in about 2.5 hours. Heated clothes racks come in at about 40 or 50 quid. Pod systems are around 80. Dehumidifiers are also a good option here apparently and help clothes dry much quicker whether using a heated rack, pod, or just a normal rack.

Air fryers are incredibly cost effective if you're cooking smaller meals or for one/two people as they're essentially mini convection ovens so do the same job but due to much smaller size, they use much less energy to heat. You can cook directly from frozen in them and there is a lot of people who say the food tastes far better etc. Lots of recipes etc online. They cost around 30-40 quid.  Obviously the other option here is batch cooking as microwaves also use negligible amounts of energy and you are essentially cooking several meals at once in the oven or on the hob.

Heating the house is clearly going to be the biggest concern for most people. Difficult for those with families to get around this, but for single people or those living with just one other person, heated blankets cost almost nothing to run, can be picked up for around 30 pounds or so and will keep things cosy enough. Getting out from under it might be a bit of a shock to the system but it's an effective way to stay warm without spending money heating the whole house.

Outdoor washing lines are cheap and use no power whatsoever, although I concede they’re not so good when it’s raining.  As for heating, get a top-floor flat and use everyone else’s heat to keep your place warm.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

14 minutes ago, kick it off said:

Most sensible solution I've seen. If you coupled this with the energy industry's plan to essentially have a scheme whereby prices are capped now (at the april 2022 rate), and we repay the money over the next 10 years so when prices do come down again, we're still fixed at essentially the rate they have been this year, to repay the deficit, then I think we could navigate this crisis fairly sensibly.

But Liz Truss will be in charge so doubtful any kind of sensible solutions will be employed.

And tbh, I think many can “cope” with the October rise alongside some of the handouts for those that need them but any more and might as well all pack up and go home.

just surely 10 old people being able to not get frostbite is surely more important than some rich blokes heated pool? And being the free market advocate that person probably is, they would have no qualms paying the going rate for such luxuries?

Think it was the Scottish Power bloke that said about the loans paid back over a few years approach which makes complete sense. It’s an obvious black swan even, just annoying it’s so soon after the Covid crisis but it needs treating with the same severity.

Much of the inevitable fall out could then be covered with a big renewables jobs drive.

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

46 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

I do wonder if there’s a way they could have a tiered system of caps, so your first few quid in energy is heavily subsidised so everyone has the basics but as you demand more, you pay the going rate so if you want to keep the heated pool on, fine, but you pay the going rate.

this way, frugal, working class people can at least afford to exist and also the government isn’t left horrendously out of pocket?

bit of that, a huge campaign of insulation/providing our own energy through renewables and opening up our existing places again like Drax etc. and the VAT decrease and we’re good to go right?

This doesn't take into account the Standing Charges which you pay regardless of your usage.

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

12 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

And tbh, I think many can “cope” with the October rise alongside some of the handouts for those that need them but any more and might as well all pack up and go home.

just surely 10 old people being able to not get frostbite is surely more important than some rich blokes heated pool? And being the free market advocate that person probably is, they would have no qualms paying the going rate for such luxuries?

Think it was the Scottish Power bloke that said about the loans paid back over a few years approach which makes complete sense. It’s an obvious black swan even, just annoying it’s so soon after the Covid crisis but it needs treating with the same severity.

Much of the inevitable fall out could then be covered with a big renewables jobs drive.

TJ - I think i can just about agree the jump to October the public with targeted help can just about manage - but DOUBLING again to  (as in the press)  - 'typical' cost of 6000 to £8000 / pa in the New Year is simply beyond even what most affluent middle class families can absorb. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,187]

13 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Outdoor washing lines are cheap and use no power whatsoever, although I concede they’re not so good when it’s raining.  As for heating, get a top-floor flat and use everyone else’s heat to keep your place warm.

I'd suggest outdoor washing lines use wind and solar power 😊

But these ideas, and those from @kick it off are good. Hopefully we can all share any good ideas to keep costs down 🙂

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 hour ago, kick it off said:

Putting the topic back on track - I'm moving in to a place on my own (most of the time) in the next week or two so have been looking at ways I can potentially save some cash, particularly in terms of energy usage. 

I dont use a lot of energy anyway but these are the things that I have found/found out that will help me keep the costs down as much as possible.

Tumble driers are expensive to run, but lots of people feel drying racks leave clothes damp etc (I'm one of them). You can buy heated drying racks, or even heated "pods" which are basically drying racks with a cover that goes round the clothes and a heater and fan combo underneath to circulate the warm air. Both of these options are a fraction of the running costs of tumble driers. The pod systems dry clothes in about 2.5 hours. Heated clothes racks come in at about 40 or 50 quid. Pod systems are around 80. Dehumidifiers are also a good option here apparently and help clothes dry much quicker whether using a heated rack, pod, or just a normal rack.

Air fryers are incredibly cost effective if you're cooking smaller meals or for one/two people as they're essentially mini convection ovens so do the same job but due to much smaller size, they use much less energy to heat. You can cook directly from frozen in them and there is a lot of people who say the food tastes far better etc. Lots of recipes etc online. They cost around 30-40 quid.  Obviously the other option here is batch cooking as microwaves also use negligible amounts of energy and you are essentially cooking several meals at once in the oven or on the hob.

Heating the house is clearly going to be the biggest concern for most people. Difficult for those with families to get around this, but for single people or those living with just one other person, heated blankets cost almost nothing to run, can be picked up for around 30 pounds or so and will keep things cosy enough. Getting out from under it might be a bit of a shock to the system but it's an effective way to stay warm without spending money heating the whole house.

I use the heated towel rail in my bathroom to dry off small items. Also, slow cookers don't apparently use much electricity either.

Mind you, I also have a hot water bottle with a fleece cover. That sorts me out pretty well, but I'm one of those fortunate ones who's not usually sensitive to cold (apart from that odd incident last year the day after my booster shot).

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

6 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I use the heated towel rail in my bathroom to dry off small items. Also, slow cookers don't apparently use much electricity either.

Mind you, I also have a hot water bottle with a fleece cover. That sorts me out pretty well, but I'm one of those fortunate ones who's not usually sensitive to cold (apart from that odd incident last year the day after my booster shot).

There's only 2 of us so we used the Air Fryer instead of the oven, works out to be about half the cost and it makes the best chips.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

26 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

This doesn't take into account the Standing Charges which you pay regardless of your usage.

They actually have the opposite effect and are completely regressive. They should be scrapped for now (or covered by the govt handouts). At least they appear to have been basically frozen so for most people it’s an insignificant portion of the total bill

Edited August 30, 2022 by Tetteys Jig

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

12 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

There's only 2 of us so we used the Air Fryer instead of the oven, works out to be about half the cost and it makes the best chips.

Yeah, I tend to make full slow cookers full of beef stew, so three if not four portions, and tbh, if I decided to put mash or rice with it, could bulk it up to six.

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

I just want to talk about heat pumps - anybody with any real world experience?

A bit of background - Large house, large plot,  yes lucky. Around 2005 actually contacted a heat pump company and basically even though I have space (and access) to do horizontal ground source (acre) the thought then was basically not cost effective - and lots of expense. I'm sure the dial has moved a bit but not the costs of retrofitting underfloor heating and the like for the low grade heat - would cost much more than the system.

Hence having called the the 'experts' in once (when it wasn't fashionable) and been shunned I am now rather suspicious of the claims for anything other than a very modern extremely well insulated smaller house - few and far between

PV seems simpler!

 

[Barbe bleu 823]

8 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I just want to talk about heat pumps - anybody with any real world experience?

Hence having called the the 'experts' in once (when it wasn't fashionable) and been shunned I am now rather suspicious of the claims for anything other than a very modern extremely well insulated smaller house - few and far between

PV seems simpler!

 

I had a calculator once.   You entered details of your house and then details of proposed upgrades. The level of detail required was very high and this was an impartial database, so results reliable.

Basically said that I should change my front door, replace my old upvc windows (front) and wooden ones (rear), insulate the loft more, and upgrade my boiler. Nothing else made any economic sense.

[sonyc 5,512]

For the last year I have been renovating an old terraced house from scratch. Every piece of plaster and studs were taken off back to stone. Really hard work. Then it's been insulated to hell from scratch. Decided a year ago to go all electric (far infra red panels and eco underfloor heating in cellar. The latter is £2.40 to £2.80 per day so far). Hoping it won't have a high heating requirement. 

The aim is to downsize (it's a fraction of the cost of our (modest semi) house, in size and space wise too), including getting rid of stuff (is already a massive project and an emotional one letting go of things). Going full hermit!

The purpose, apart from living  less 'materialistically' is to give / dividend any funds released to our lads. They need help now. One does a really responsible job but gets £9.50per hour for example. Both rent (with partners - also on very low wages - one with a first class degree is doing care work, the other supply teaching) but rent and energy takes up to 70% of their income - now. It could end up being 100% of their income by January. No money for food then if that happens let alone leisure.

I think our family experience will be repeated right round the country. Food banks have been a big thing in the Bradford district for a long while. There is a brilliant curry club. A meal is provided free once a week. You can volunteer to serve.

I worry about neighbours and many people I must admit. Some older folk have had experience of poverty and struggling and many had no heating growing up. Very elderly Mother in law is already thinking of not having heating on. Worry about her too.

I'm confident the new government will provide help. Covid help set an example of the state stepping in (furlough) and I expect Truss to do the same, whatever she is not saying now.

Some great ideas above too on using things less and on saving. I wonder whether fridges will be used less too? Reading a few stories about that. Wonder too if eco underfloor heating is a solution for some? Reading about it was interesting because I had always thought it would be expensive. But in a lower positioned room heat of course rises throughout a house.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by sonyc

[Barbe bleu 823]

1 hour ago, Tetteys Jig said:

I do wonder if there’s a way they could have a tiered system of caps, so your first few quid in energy is heavily subsidised so everyone has the basics but as you demand more, you pay the going rate so if you want to keep the heated pool on, fine, but you pay the going rate.

this way, frugal, working class people can at least afford to exist and also the government isn’t left horrendously out of pocket?

bit of that, a huge campaign of insulation/providing our own energy through renewables and opening up our existing places again like Drax etc. and the VAT decrease and we’re good to go right?

Have to say your tiered system has a lot of attraction in theory.  Not so appealing for people in shared houses, and those who dont have a smart meter or who might struggle  to make effective estimates for use over the whole winter though.

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

2 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

More waffly b*llocks, no wonder some one compared you to JRM the other day 😂

I did not want the Queen tto 'jump in' - our unwritten constitution demands that the PM is required to gain the monarch's approval to prorogue Parliament and that he has to provide a justification for her to give her permission.

He didn't have a valid  justification, he wanted to suspend our 'democracy' because he wanted to prevent the HoC making any decisions that didn't suit him, and so instead he offered the Queen a set of very obvious and clear lies.

As the Supreme Court belatedly confirmed, the request from Johnson didn't go anywhere near the justiifiable and the Queen should have refused it - it is very straightforward and simple. The justification provided by Johnson was a pack of lies, that must have been clear to both the Queen and her advisors at the time. No jumping of any sort was required - she simply needed to refuse Johnson's unjustified request to properly discharge her constitutional responsiblities as our Head of State but for reasons which have never been explained she failed to do the right and appropriate thing.

But she didn't and the constitutional checks and balances were totally unsatisfactory - Johnson still succeeded in the fraudulent suspension of our democracy for the time he needed and suffered no consequences whatsoever for a gross violation of our constitution. So I'm afraid that your notion that in a real crisis the Queen would act as a safety value (as she is supposed to) is quite ridiculous - this was a real crisis and she blew it if you'll pardon the pun 😂

Oh, and on the subject of our dysfunctional 'democracy' and our FPTP  system I made that point very clearly in my earlier post but both your responses have studiously avoided that as you respond again to a load of stuff I didn't say rather than what I actually did say - disingenuous?? I think you need to look closer to home.

The request to the Queen is effectively a traditional courtesy of a ceremonial nature; it is technically true that she could do what you say, but if the Queen was to follow through with your absurd suggestion then most people would agree that she would be creating a constitutional crisis unnecessarily. Most people would also agree that this sort of procedural question is more suited to judicial review than the monarch exercising ultimate authority in such an extreme way, which is reinforced by the fact that the supreme court did quash the prorogation. 

In the event, the quashing of the prorogation proved totally inconsequential anyway; parliament forced a request for a pointless extension to the withdrawal process, only for things to be followed quickly by a general election where the the electorate put an end to the paralysis in parliament that had been the status quo for the last couple of years. In my opinion, the failure of parliament to come to agreement when there was the opportunity for cross-party compromise ultimately led to the Conservatives getting it all their way. 

With all due respect, I think you should learn a bit more about how our democratic system does actually work before getting too carried away with opinions on what needs to be changed. 

Incidentally, this is a link to the "blog" of "unnecessary" quotation marks. http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/, which is a quite entertaining read, not to mention 'educational' for people who don't 'understand' how to use 'quotation marks'. 😉

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

42 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I had a calculator once.   You entered details of your house and then details of proposed upgrades. The level of detail required was very high and this was an impartial database, so results reliable.

Basically said that I should change my front door, replace my old upvc windows (front) and wooden ones (rear), insulate the loft more, and upgrade my boiler. Nothing else made any economic sense.

Yup - I will add a 6 to 10KW PV system in due course (plus car charger) - large due south facing roof but much the same conclusion. The 'heat pump' for us wont really cut it. Redid all the windows a few years back but a number of large double wooden door sets to go!

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

47 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The request to the Queen is effectively a traditional courtesy of a ceremonial nature; it is technically true that she could do what you say, but if the Queen was to follow through with your absurd suggestion then most people would agree that she would be creating a constitutional crisis unnecessarily. Most people would also agree that this sort of procedural question is more suited to judicial review than the monarch exercising ultimate authority in such an extreme way, which is reinforced by the fact that the supreme court did quash the prorogation. 

I think you've just given an extremely good reason why we need an effective head of state that can, if needed, act.

The fact that the proroguement of parliament was deemed illegal after the act only emphasizes that not only was Johnson (and his government) acting illegally - but the Queen failed in her duty however misled or lied too to uphold the constitution. Perhaps you wish the Queen to be franking machine for whatever rules Parliament comes up with?

Actually you need to understand that even the PM is the Queens Minister - the 'mace' representing the 'Queen-in-Parliament' through which all laws are ultimately enacted.

[sonyc 5,512]

27 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think you've just given an extremely good reason why we need an effective head of state that can, if needed, act.

The fact that the proroguement of parliament was deemed illegal after the act only emphasizes that not only was Johnson (and his government) acting illegally - but the Queen failed in her duty however misled or lied too to uphold the constitution. Perhaps you wish the Queen to be franking machine for whatever rules Parliament comes up with?

Actually you need to understand that even the PM is the Queens Minister - the 'mace' representing the 'Queen-in-Parliament' through which all laws are ultimately enacted.

Whether the Queen / head of state needed to act or not (because the Supreme Court brilliantly did its job, arguably not just in the best spirit of our unwritten constitution on that occasion but in act) the fact is that Johnson pushed the very limits of our constitutional democracy. It was appalling that Rees Mogg was despatched to Scotland at the time to make the case to the Queen. It demonstrated a very worrying line of thinking, if not a sense of entitlement in our government. Rwanda again is another example. These actions are not the actions of a normal conservative administration but a populist one (or you might argue a semi-fascist one in referencing Umberto Eco's 14 points).

All (natural) conservatives should have been very concerned about Johnson. And he isn't finished but like Stewart says, is likely to try and do a Berlusconi. If so, the head of state role will be under fresh scrutiny. The days of an unwritten constitution may well be numbered because of Johnson. And his actions have refocused a lot of observers on the role of the monarchy. 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by sonyc

[Tetteys Jig 830]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Have to say your tiered system has a lot of attraction in theory.  Not so appealing for people in shared houses, and those who dont have a smart meter or who might struggle  to make effective estimates for use over the whole winter though.

 

 

I don’t have a smart meter (they couldn’t get it to connect apparently) and it would still work for me. I can just go look at the meter regularly whenever I need to assess my usage.

Hate to fight somewhat on the govt side of things but it is a bit “you scratch our backs we scratch yours” that has to happen. People need to cut back and be responsible. For most of us (up to that average cost) they keep putting in the headline) we can keep our costs to a reasonable level and not freeze to death. If people want to be irresponsible with energy then let them pay for it.

Sadly there are always going to be exceptions like there was with the furlough payments but surely helping 95% of people is better than helping nobody?

some of these you can plan for (people with a medical need for intense energy usage for example)

I know a lot more about energy usage than I did a year ago for sure! I had the immersion on constant for a few months last year until my mum raised the alarm with me 😄 lucky I was dumb then and not now! Time to educate people on the value of each kWh used.

I’ll happily go along with having shorter showers, having the heating on minimal and making sure appliances are turned off when not required and high energy ones used much less but I can’t just exist using zero energy.

people should be educating their kids about responsible usage as well and explaining that it’s shorter showers or Santa ain’t coming!

Edited August 30, 2022 by Tetteys Jig