Have ti say. Im sorta interested to findbout what the answers are.

I support the community. And am annoyed at how little recent governments have.

But info like this really only comes up when you know folks going through the process.

tldr. Thanks for posting an interesting question

A guess, of course. But given the new government’s plans to end many rail franchise contracts over the first parliament.

Plus recent news that one co-op has been green-lighted. While loads more have been allowed into the bidding process.

This is likely just a desperate attempt to continue existing as a franchise whenever the current one expires.

This. Ignoring the questionable source.

Other than denying Kerch bridge has anything to do with the UK. And they have provided 0 evidence to indicate it was.

Nothing they claim in any way disagrees with the UK open policy on Ukraine. Even if the UK blow Kerch bridge. It would be seen as supporting Ukraine’s own desire to keep their territory. Rather than anyway, proving that Ukraine would want to surrender without the UK “Plotting to keep them fighting”

Nothing here at all disagrees with the goals openly declared by the UK government. Under both current and previose leadership.

yeah, auto correct.

Ok that is interesting.

I remember a show on TV a while ago, Where a local group tried this same thing. And ran into hurdles that indicated the government, seemed to be completely ignoring their own rules to benefit large corporations over set-ups like this.

This seems to indicate a huge positive in the new government, throwing out that level of capitalist prejudice on public transport.

EDIT: While no one sane would ever call this gov left wing.

I am really starting to feel positive towards their changes to public transport policy. If this continues and they have the time. We may actually start to see a comparably decent service with a decade or so.

PS: A hearty good on them for the co-op calling itself Go-op. Sorta makes a very well heard point.

Only fails to make sense. If you failed to read any significant portion of the said wall of text.

It was a wall because It was detailed in the history of solar power. Ill ELI5 for you.

We have funded solar power for decades. By allowing the industry to charge equal to other fuels. Meaning, for 20 years or more, companies have been trying to build solar plants all over the nation. And those that got there made a fucking fortune. Until the Tories ended part of it nearly 14 years ago. They stopped the subsidies. But still paid the same rate as more expensive power.

The problem with building solar is the politics from farmers and local communities. As the text described.

So

Solving politics is cheap and fast.

Utter crap. Solar power companies have been trying for 20 years.

Its not like you came up with a new idea.

Of building solar over nuclear. We have been trying for decades.

Wondering if anyone who knows the language/region.

Can confirm the terms they use. Because age of consent when its clear the child is not able to express a chioce or old enouth to understand what they would be agreeing to.

Seems like a western interpretation. Or are the laws there really that hypocritical in their terminology.

‘Political malpractice’ sorta describes everything he does.

But, as statements go. It has the same value as suggesting he make his own orange die.

Solving politics is cheap and fast.

Utter crap. Solar power companies have been trying for 20 years.

Its not like you came up with a new idea.

You can theoretically. Unfortunately, you are not considering the land difference.

More to the point, the absolute political nightmare of buying and getting permission to use so much land.

It is a nightmare for both. But rare to see the amount of land needed for the power station, have to argue about arable use. Whereas, it’s pretty hard in the UK to locate the solar without others claiming land is lost. Farm land mainly as that is the cheap build option. (pricy land, lower labour).

But even brownfield land. Once you have the area to host something like this. You are usually talking about close to populated areas. And just about every NIMBY crap excuse is thrown up about history or other potential use. Meaning, at best you end up with some huge project that takes decades. With a vague plan to add solar generation to the roof.

Honestly I agree. It should be fucking easy to build these plants. Farming should be updating. And honestly can benefit from well-designed solar if both parties are willing to invest and research.

But we have been seeing these arguments for the last 20 years. And people are arseholes, mostly.

And this is all before you consider the need for storage. Again solvable with hydro etc. Theoretically easy. But more land and way way more politics and time. If hydro the cost goes insane. And the type of land become more politically complex. If battery, you instantly get the comparison of mining and transport costs. So again more insane politics.

If it was. And lets face it in 2024 we have well and trully lost the definition.

Posting false images of people compleatly unrelated to the event. Based entirly on what they look like.

And trying to stir fear and hatred to dismis a political proteat.

Yep hard to call that anything bur terrorism.

Unfortunately, only local auth councillors tend to have any interest in lowering the limit.

Well at least since 1967 when the M1 was first given the perm 70mph limit.

Sounds logical on a just consider it level.

But us old farts know better.

The nation went metric in 1965 joined the EU in 1975.

You know how all road signs are reflective. Well, back then that did not exist. Reflective roadsigns started in the early 1980s.

Add to that, most major roads end up replacing the signs every several years.

And the simple fact is No If in the 80s we decided to double sign (as other nations did. Every nation in the EU did it at some point. France was well before road signs, 1795 I think. But the rest of the EU could not agree on anything before the 1940s. Almost all of them had their own versions of imperial like units divided over regions based on political power.

It was not until the early predecessor to the EU post ww2 that most of Europe changed.

If we started in 1980 by displaying km plus mph on all signs. (Rounded to the nearest unit). The original change would not have cost any more than current spending. Buy now, most major roads would have had many replacements, likely dropping the mph.

We would still see some dual signs in very low use back roads.

But when did you last see a non-reflective sign. Because that is as often as you would see MPH only signs. At 0 extra spending.

Just to be clear. The UK is full metric as far as EU rules are concerned.

Heck, as far as the SI is concerned, so is the US. We both changed in the 70s. SI just required all other units to be defined based on metric. The UK and US do this. And the EU just requires all trade to be available as a metric option.

What you actually use to communicate in nation non-sales is your own business. Heck, we can even sell in your own units as long as we also offer conversions on request. (according to EU. I think the UK required display in metric at some point. )

We and the US are just too stubborn to use the better units.

Grins born 1970 exactly.

So your a young wipper snapper.

Feel free to pass that proffesional opinion on to your significant (or otherwise) other.>

Yes, that can be a grey area, but it would be a start.

Yep lets remember. Under that rule. The NHS bus passes.

Advertising really only has to not be provable false. The ASA has way less power when claims are questionable or down to interpretation.

Does a Mars a day help you work, rest and play. Well, obesity and increased risk of type 2 diabetes would say hell no. If a politician claimed sugar treats helped you work, rest and play. He would be dragged over the coals in the media.

But technically. As a type one diabetic. Without access to sugar (refined carbs) exercise is very able to kill me via hypoglycaemia. And all mammals need energy. So technically it’s true. But full of crap at the same time.

Yeah you may be too young to remember that advert. I have no idea I dont think Ie seen it since the 90s. But it’s still legal today.

I agree. But can see how this will go.

If it gets the votes. (Hard because most have gotten fed up with these things achieving nothing)

Parliment will have a discussion. Argue about how impossible it is to define truth from a government prospective. (IE without looking like censorship)

Then never being it up again.

Unfortunately this is the sort of problem that needs answers before letting government discuss it. And then needs grass roots support to force it forward.

And honestly. I don’t think the UK is capable of that any more. NHS creating and post war social housing was likely the last time we were.

OK. Wow.

2-3 years is way way better then I ever expected.

Be fantastic if it happens.

Aren’t pension funds supposed to spread their risks?

Individual funds are yes. But a larger fund can do so more effectively. As having a larger % of one company represents a smaller % of the funds total investment risk. IE the bigger the fund the more it can risk without endangering the whole plan.

As long as it is managed well. And that comes to your second point.

That boils down to there being no real difference. If the gov has control of multiple small funds. They can already make choices based on economy vs long term investment. And if long term comes second. Are failing the pensioners.

Having a bigger fund doesn’t change this. It just allows the investment to be controlled buy one voting fund, giving it more ability to control that company. Again, something that can be used to benefit the pensioners or the economy. Depending on the priorities of the government.

But basically if the gov has access to 3 funds or one big one with the same money. They are just as able to choose how that money is used. One fund just includes options for something closer to national ownership. So more control on how the company makes the same choices.

Shitty government choice is shitty government no matter how the money is devided. Its just one way is more effective no matter what choices they make good or bad.

As labour are continuing tory crap. And have added nothing to it.

How can that be worse vs identicle.

As a potential victim of this shit. Please stop weakening the case with over grandiose claims of crap.