[kreuzberger]

The panels on farm land are usually erected at such a height that the light can still do its thing and the crops can mature without needing to be watered.

It's what the farmers do in Brandenburg so that they can enjoy extra income while still voting for the fascists who would ban such egregious wokery. It's a funny old Welt.

[The Weeping Angel]

On the Labour's future facebook group there's one poster who when she isn't lashing out at the govt over WFA and disability cuts is also ranting on about Net Zero which costs £600 billion.

It'll cost a lot more if we carry on as we are (or worse still, revert) and lose large chunks of land to the sea - a lot of which is farm land. Those "Escape Route" signs are still pretty prominent in East Anglia and the East Midlands coast.

This is her main arguement.

where did I say stop spending on net zero? There is 600 billion set aside to meet a needlessly self-imposed target of 2030. No other country has that target so for us to spend that money is meaningless given the tiny amount our country contributes to worldwide emissions. Why not put it back to 2035 and free up 100 billion for reenablement, occupational and physical therapists, better equipment for the physically disabled (NHS kit is of an unimaginably low standard and does not provide the modern capabilities needed for disabled people to get back into the workplace), and support for smaller businesses to adapt their workplaces to be able to welcome disabled people into employment. As for spending trillions to mitigate the effects of climate change eh? We aren't causing trillions of damage in this country. Are you suggesting we should pay for China's clean up or America's or Australia's. They are polluting the environment not us. Or are you seriously suggesting that we surcharge the disabled in this country to pay for China's pollution?

[Boiler]

The usual "Yebbut China and the USA"...

[Boiler]

The panels on farm land are usually erected at such a height that the light can still do its thing and the crops can mature without needing to be watered.

It's what the farmers do in Brandenburg so that they can enjoy extra income while still voting for the fascists who would ban such egregious wokery. It's a funny old Welt.

Also, I understand, so sheep can graze. It's a bloody win-win, so what's the problem with the British?

Plus, they're way more unobtrusive than turbines - which I find rather elegant anyway and add a little relief to the vast Fenland skies. Which probably once had windmills powering pumps to drain the Fens anyway...

Kreuzy - is burning lignite for power a thing in DE?

[davidjay]

The panels on farm land are usually erected at such a height that the light can still do its thing and the crops can mature without needing to be watered.

It's what the farmers do in Brandenburg so that they can enjoy extra income while still voting for the fascists who would ban such egregious wokery. It's a funny old Welt.

Also, I understand, so sheep can graze. It's a bloody win-win, so what's the problem with the British?

Plus, they're way more unobtrusive than turbines - which I find rather elegant anyway and add a little relief to the vast Fenland skies. Which probably once had windmills powering pumps to drain the Fens anyway...

Kreuzy - is burning lignite for power a thing in DE?

That's something I'd never thought before - what's a wind turbine if not a modern windmill? The reason they're unpopular with a certain demographic is that they smack of eco-green-climate change -Net Zero wokery.

[Boiler]

A former colleague of mine has just sent me this: worth a watch if you're technically minded especially.

[mattomac]

Problem is the just about managing have been constantly hit over the last 14 years, I saw someone moaning about their pension only going up by £36. Bar those NI changes I’ve not had a pay rise of that level for about 10 of the last 14 years.

[Boiler]

You certainly have to kick and fight in the freelance world for a pay rise.

[The Weeping Angel]

[Tubby Isaacs]

Thanks for the headline, Guardian. Expect to see this regularly recycled as a preview on social media, like when Rachel Reeves suggested taxing some bankers to provide compulsory jobs for the long term unemployed and got "We'll be tougher than the Tories" as the headline.

No 10 happy to dip its toe into culture wars in row with Sentencing Council

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/ma ... ng-council

The article's actually fine, allowing that the government might genuinely see a problem with the sentencing guidelines. My view is that there is that if you take an exclusively group based view of inequalities, as this seemed very much to do, then you miss lots of unfairness. Within the group of white men, there are going to be a lot who get treated unfairly too because the judge takes against them for being rough looking, even if that's not true of the group as a whole. I think this stuff is a gift to Jenrick who is being a shithead, but even I think drafting could be improved. Something more general about fairness would be better, which may include etc etc.

Far from relishing the culture war, my impression is that Labour want the Sentencing Council to redraft and get it off their desk. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I was trying to work out how much new money there was, and it seems to be over a billion, which isn't bad going for one day. The trams aren't funded yet, but this announcement surely makes them more likely to happen. We'll see.

The rhetoric seems a bit overdone though. Liverpool-Hull isn't going to be a superpower any time soon, and it's not really like the Ox-Cam arc where loosening planning by itself is going to do most of the work (see house prices for a guide to how many people want to move there).

Clearly this is fairly big. Guardian politics blog had the Sentencing Council row as the headline, I noticed.

[Tubby Isaacs]

And the Government seems to be very determined to do what people have said governments should do- invest in capital projects. I didn't support the benefit cuts, but I did note that capital didn't get touched- there was actually a fair bit extra of it. This is quite the departure from the last 14 years.

Capital investment, until it opens, is a slow burner. I'm not sure the government will get much credit, but I hope it does if it happens.

[The Weeping Angel]

Matthew Doyle has left as Dowing Street Communications Director.

[The Weeping Angel]

According to James Ball Reeves has sold Labour's soul

[Tubby Isaacs]

Bit more than making a spreadsheet add up. The rules exist for a reason. But it's a poor choice, and I think they'll have to do something in future budgets.

[The Weeping Angel]

They should look at fuel duty. Sam Freedman has a good piece on this whole situation.

https://samf.substack.com/p/credibility ... irect=true

Political Credibility

Contrary to the mockery in the right-wing press neither Reeves nor those around her are fools. They know what’s coming in the autumn. So why not take the hit now?

I think there are two reasons. First there is a belief that if the tax pledge is going to be broken then the public need to be convinced that all other routes for raising revenue have been exhausted. Ministers are looking at polling showing people believe it is possible to avoid spending cuts or tax rises. This is partly their own fault because politicians of all parties keep talking about waste as if it is both easy to identity and a substantial proportion of spending, but that is now the public’s expectation. So what they are doing is systematically going through every area of unpopular spending and making a point of reducing it to deal with the initial round of savings required.

Which is why foreign aid – consistently top of things voters would cut – has been hammered. As have civil servants and NHS managers. And welfare recipients. There’s a political balancing act here, particularly on welfare, as too aggressive a cut would lead to full blown rebellion. But some level of internal opposition is seen as helpful as it emphasises the point that these are “difficult decisions” for Reeves and Starmer. Especially if it comes from people associated with the Corbyn era.

[davidjay]

Fuel duty seems to have become one of the sacred cows that no government dare touch. There's a perception that petrol is extortionately expensive when it's something like 15% cheaper in real terms than it was forty years ago.

[Abernathy]

The following is from a guy called Edward Kimberly, who administers a group on Facebook about Keir Starmer. It's long, but it's worth reading.

I'm afraid this post is going to be a long one. Because of the nature of the topic at hand, it has to be. Even with the amount I'm going to write, I won't be able to do full justice to it. All I can ask from each of you is your patience - first in reading, and then in taking your time to respond.

That said - I think it's important to try and insert a bit of calm and a bit of context into a topic that is causing a lot of anxiety and unhappiness at the moment; that of Rachel Reeves' Spring Statement, and what it means for people with disabilities, many of whom are currently depending on PIP to survive.

A lot of people are worried that they're imminently going to lose their benefits and be left destitute. It's understandable why they'd be frightened.

So let me address that head on: that will not be happening, and certainly not in the near future. How can I be so sure?

Firstly, the changes have to go through Parliament. There will be ample opportunity for MPs to make amendments and adjustments to those plans, and to highlight any problems. And there will be ample opportunity for you to write to your MP if you are personally going to be impacted by the changes. They will then feed your comments into that debate, as appropriate.

Secondly, the changes will not take effect right away, even when the votes go through. This is a plan that's set to take effect over years and decades. This is not a Conservative government, which has no qualms about inflicting massive amounts of pain and distress by making sudden changes. The change to disability welfare will be phased in to give people plenty of time to adjust their lives around them.

But isn't this symptomatic of a government cracking down on the most vulnerable people in our society?

Our welfare system is not sustainable into the future, as it's currently constituted. The population of the UK is ageing, rapidly. And more people are in receipt of benefits than at any previous point in history. That number is forecast to go up and up, while at the same time, there will be fewer people of working age and ability to pay to support them.

There are solutions to this, but none are going to be easy:

- We could import more labour through immigration. But this would feed the reactionary right, and suppress wages for our existing population. It also depends on other countries maintaining a higher birth rate than ours, which does not seem likely.
- We could automate more jobs, abolishing entire categories of work like delivery, warehouse operations and manufacture. But this would leave many existing workers out of a job, and will take decades to accomplish.
- We could do nothing, and hope the problem naturally resolves itself. Much like the Conservatives did for 14 years. Meanwhile, the benefits bill will continue to mount up, and the government's finances will deteriorate some more.

OR

- We can take a new approach to the benefits system. We can support more people into work, to reduce demand for benefits, and improve productivity at the same time, boosting the size of our economy and enabling us to pay for the services we want.

And it's clear that Rachel Reeves and the government want to take that latter option. Make no mistake - it's not going to be an easy way out, because in the short term, it means announcing cuts to existing welfare, and redirecting that money into skills training and support for people making job applications.

That's why it's important to see these changes in the larger context. The larger context of improving workers' rights, investing in economic growth, and building thousands of new homes.

What do all of these different policies have in common? They are designed to make the world of work more accessible and more attractive, to help more people access work. If this program succeeds, it will achieve growth, reduce dependency on benefits and help Britain achieve a higher standard of living than we have seen in nearly 20 years. That, I think, is something to celebrate.

But I recognise that some of this will ring hollow for many of you reading this. There are genuine reasons to be nervous or worried - and if that's how you feel, I would urge you to write an email to your MP, outlining your circumstances. The more cases they have to go on, the easier it will be for the government to adjust its course to ensure the least possible harm.

Because I can say with hand on heart, nobody who stands to be a Labour candidate ever does so with the intent of being cruel, or allowing harm to come to ordinary people.

I hope some of this may be of use to you, and if you have any questions or thoughts, please don't hesitate to drop them in the comments below. If I have helped at least a couple of people feel a little better and a little reassured, I will consider this a job well done.

[Boiler]

Fuel duty seems to have become one of the sacred cows that no government dare touch. There's a perception that petrol is extortionately expensive when it's something like 15% cheaper in real terms than it was forty years ago.

It does however attract more duty than many countries across the Channel. I think it was 38p/litre when I passed my test in 1982: running that past the BoE inflation calculator brought it to 133p/litre, which is what my local Co-Op is charging for a litre of E10 at the moment.

However; I think that given our reliance on road transport now, a rise in fuel duty will almost immediately turn into a rise in things such as food.

Regarding PIP: I have an autistic colleague who's in receipt of it. If she volunteers her thoughts on the matter, I may discuss it with her.

[kreuzberger]

"Most aspensiff fuel in Europe, innit", is the myth that no journalist every challenged and thus allowed it to take stronger root than Japanese Knot-weed.