Can we come back to them advocating stuff that will immiserate masses of people just because they are sick or disabled leading to deaths?
I find the word ablist just doesn't land as racist does with enough force and repugnance
The combination of racism and attacking those who cannot be exploited enough by their selfish greedy millionaire backers to satisfy them needs recognition.
We're basically looking at Nazis without the tanks. Yet.
(One of my pet internal debates is whether people getting paid to do something deserve any thanks at all beyond being handed the money, and on top of that I tend to be pretty unsentimental about political processes.
A lot of people running elections are seconded from other work that still needs doing and with no budget for overtime a lot of people end up not getting paid for all their time.
Well, that sucks. Maybe the system should be reformed so budgets have funding for overtime?
The British way is to lock eyes with anyone who is directly visible doing something for you and thank them. We do not tend to be too worried about people we cannot see - so we thank the bus driver but we do not usually try to thank the train driver. On the whole polite thanks is nothing to do with whether the person is paid or not.
Yeah, same in Canada. Five minutes ago, I thanked the barista who handed me my coffee.
I'm not sure I've ever heard a victorious candidate in Canada thank the election workers. We don't do the whole thing of all the candidates assembling for the count, so the elections workers aren't all present when the respective speeches are made.
(One of my pet internal debates is whether people getting paid to do something deserve any thanks at all beyond being handed the money, and on top of that I tend to be pretty unsentimental about political processes.
A lot of people running elections are seconded from other work that still needs doing and with no budget for overtime a lot of people end up not getting paid for all their time.
Well, that sucks. Maybe the system should be reformed so budgets have funding for overtime?
There are a great many things in local authority budgets that could do with more funding. Case in point: many of the core elections staff in my local authority also hand Subject Access Requests so the Scottish Parliament elections pushed back handling of a lot of cases where people are asking for records of their time in care as children. Everything is short, from learning support staff in schools to care packages for those leaving hospital, from road repairs to children's play areas. Every year is another round of budget "savings", there's no slack left.
Tice mentions desalination in his spiel but the two principal methods of desalination (reverse osmosis and thermal distillation) both use large amounts of energy. You can join up the dots from there.
Reform are an attempted crime against reality. Reality is remarkably unforgiving, and will punish all their crimes in the end, if they are allowed to carry them out.
Quite apart from global warming and ecological disaster, people who say "just enjoy it" of things I find absolutely hellish can fuck themselves with a rusty farm implement and try to "just enjoy it". Fucking cloaca*
Quite apart from global warming and ecological disaster, people who say "just enjoy it" of things I find absolutely hellish can fuck themselves with a rusty farm implement and try to "just enjoy it". Fucking cloaca*
*An arsehole and a twat in one.
And, not only are recent temperatures in the UK not enjoyable, they are actually leading to thousands of people dying. Yeah, enjoy the funeral for your elderly friends and relatives killed by the effects of climate change we could have avoided if people like that f***er hadn't bought and bullied governments into not taking action that would have prevented it.
Add in the farmers who are seeing their drops fail, I'm sure they're enjoying worrying about where they'll find the 100s of grand that they lost. Which is not just a question of water supply, putting in measures to better store winter rain and reduce losses through broken pipes are good but more water to irrigate crops doesn't cut the air temperature very much (moist soil will increase cooling from evaporation - but to cool the air significantly we need more than just farm land watered more, but everywhere which will need rain).
Just point Jeremy Clarkson in his direction. I'm sure he's had a rude awakening this year, even if other people do most of the work on 'his' farm.
I’m not sure many people do work on his farm. A few labourers plus an accountant on three times their wages.
There's very few people work on farms these days - my brother may be the only non-family worker on the one he works on.
Clarkson vs Jenrick would be worth popcorn as, despite being a gobshite who appears slightly to the left of Vlad Dracul, he was Pro-EU, and a signed-up Lib Dem. I suspect he'd chew Jenrick a second arsehole.
Seeing the title of this thread, in the context of recent Reform comments "We will scrap PIP" and "Just enjoy the warm weather" - I think the answer is very clearly "yes".
Seeing the title of this thread, in the context of recent Reform comments "We will scrap PIP" and "Just enjoy the warm weather" - I think the answer is very clearly "yes".
Oh, I don't think anyone doubted that Reform would do awful and stupid things if given power, it's more a matter of how close they're likely to get to it.
I think there is a bit of nuance here. It is true that changing temperatures mean we cannot do agriculture as we have been doing it. If this is the coolest summer that we are likely to have in the next 100 years, that's obviously a problem if the mental model we have is of the last 100 years.
But there is some good news in the sense that the UK is not suddenly going to become the Sahara, we have models of agriculture from other places that we could adapt. One thing we do have as an island is a lot of water, albeit in a form that we would need to find ways to make usable in agriculture.
More of an issue than agriculture is infrastructure that cannot cope, which requires a lot of creative thinking and planning. Clearly it is possible to live well in temperatures which regularly exceed 30C, but also it is clear that we are not prepared for it.
It’s true that we are surrounded by water, which we could use for agriculture if were willing to spend a vast amount processing it, but I would advocate taking more care of the fresh water we have, but I don’t think that squares with the remit of our water companies.
It’s true that we are surrounded by water, which we could use for agriculture if were willing to spend a vast amount processing it, but I would advocate taking more care of the fresh water we have, but I don’t think that squares with the remit of our water companies.
It's a lot more complicated than you suggest here - there are no cost-free solutions to get potable water (or agricultural water, which may not be the same thing). For example if one wants to store water one needs large or small reservoirs with knock-on impacts of that choice.
Desalination can be expensive but does not necessarily need to be. Salt tolerant crops could be grown, agroforestry, and so on.
Water companies certainly are not helping when they scrape off profits but the hard reality is that the infrastructure needs investment and private investors are not going to risk their capital without a return.
@Basketactortale And the root cause of all those problems is that there is a lack of coordination between the construction and maintenance of the water infrastructure and the water supply chain from which the water companies currently gain a risk free profit.
In the current economy I have to accept that profits will accrue to the owners, but they shouldn’t make money in a one-horse race.
@Basketactortale And the root cause of all those problems is that there is a lack of coordination between the construction and maintenance of the water infrastructure and the water supply chain from which the water companies currently gain a risk free profit.
In the current economy I have to accept that profits will accrue to the owners, but they shouldn’t make money in a one-horse race.
Risk free? Have you heard of Thames Water? The investors are at risk of losing all their capital investment
@Basketactortale
You might like to see this from The Guardian in 2023 and this from OFWAT.
Anyone who had invested in Thames Water in the “Golden Years” has done very nicely thank you, from Thames Water’s business method of using debt to fund dividends.
@Basketactortale
You might like to see this from The Guardian in 2023 and this from OFWAT.
Anyone who had invested in Thames Water in the “Golden Years” has done very nicely thank you, from Thames Water’s business method of using debt to fund dividends.
As far as Thames Water is concerned - good. The investors should be paying back the money they got out of it instead of the company mending the leaks and building new reservoirs. That goes for all the other water companies that haven't been doing their jobs but have been giving money to shareholders and as bonuses.
@Basketactortale You want nuance, here's some more for you to consider. People over 60 are much more likely to die from the effects of extreme heat than younger people. Excess deaths during the heatwaves this year are about twice as high as they were last summer.
Still, at least we'll be able to enjoy a few bottles of English wine before we go.
@Basketactortale You want nuance, here's some more for you to consider. People over 60 are much more likely to die from the effects of extreme heat than younger people. Excess deaths during the heatwaves this year are about twice as high as they were last summer.
Still, at least we'll be able to enjoy a few bottles of English wine before we go.
I am not sure why you think I am defending the idiots of Reform. What I meant is exactly what I said and no more - change is inevitable. We can either be doomerist about it or we can seek to find ways to survive based on models from elsewhere in the world where people have built ways to survive.
@Basketactortale I fear you set yourself up by being seen to defend Thames Water. As Ted Heath said many years ago of LonRho it typifies “The unacceptable face of capitalism” which entails running up debt and pension fund deficits to pay excessive bonuses and dividends”. The demise of BHS under Philip Green was another example.
@Basketactortale I fear you set yourself up by being seen to defend Thames Water. As Ted Heath said many years ago of LonRho it typifies “The unacceptable face of capitalism” which entails running up debt and pension fund deficits to pay excessive bonuses and dividends”. The demise of BHS under Philip Green was another example.
You keep changing the goalposts. The only reality is that water and sewerage costs money and requires investment. There is no alternative to that fact.
The question is how to pay for it. In a nationalised system the state takes the risk. In a privatised system the state has little risk but then the shareholders make a profit.
Yes it is obviously true that private water companies have taken short term gains at the expense of capital intensive investment. But there is no guarantee a nationalised system would be any better, and plenty of evidence of the reverse; nationalised water means big contracts, which means corruption. It also is incredibly difficult for politicians to sign off on expensive capital improvements when they have other competing priorities, often they do not even do the necessary improvements which leads to serious breakdowns.
Thames are clearly a failing company. The idea that profits are "risk-free" is untrue, the implication that a counter-factual alternative history where Thames was always nationalised and therefore better is unprovable but likely also wrong.
But there is no guarantee a nationalised system would be any better, and plenty of evidence of the reverse; nationalised water means big contracts, which means corruption.
Yes, assuming they contracted out for such things, the alternative is doing things in house. [Personally, I think it's an improvement that the natural assumption is that corruption is -- at the very least -- a possibility].
Thames are clearly a failing company. The idea that profits are "risk-free" is untrue, the implication that a counter-factual alternative history where Thames was always nationalised and therefore better is unprovable but likely also wrong.
Other models have been used elsewhere - not least in Scotland - which provide somewhat of a natural experiment.
But there is no guarantee a nationalised system would be any better, and plenty of evidence of the reverse; nationalised water means big contracts, which means corruption.
Yes, assuming they contracted out for such things, the alternative is doing things in house. [Personally, I think it's an improvement that the natural assumption is that corruption is -- at the very least -- a possibility].
Thames are clearly a failing company. The idea that profits are "risk-free" is untrue, the implication that a counter-factual alternative history where Thames was always nationalised and therefore better is unprovable but likely also wrong.
Other models have been used elsewhere - not least in Scotland - which provide somewhat of a natural experiment.
Scotland and Wales both have alternative models as does the Republic of Ireland. The problem is that comparing these with the Thames area is extremely difficult.
But there is no guarantee a nationalised system would be any better, and plenty of evidence of the reverse; nationalised water means big contracts, which means corruption.
Yes, assuming they contracted out for such things, the alternative is doing things in house. [Personally, I think it's an improvement that the natural assumption is that corruption is -- at the very least -- a possibility].
Thames are clearly a failing company. The idea that profits are "risk-free" is untrue, the implication that a counter-factual alternative history where Thames was always nationalised and therefore better is unprovable but likely also wrong.
Other models have been used elsewhere - not least in Scotland - which provide somewhat of a natural experiment.
Scotland and Wales both have alternative models as does the Republic of Ireland. The problem is that comparing these with the Thames area is extremely difficult.
That depends on what you are trying to compare. Yes, Thames is a particular area, which in UK terms is at one end of the spectrum of technical challenges - a very large population centre in the part of the UK where average rainfall is the least. So, the technical solutions needed to maintain water supplies in the Thames region are going to be different - there's some justification for saying that customers in the Thames region need to use less water per capita than other areas, which may entail usage restrictions not needed elsewhere; there's also justification in saying Thames could benefit from additional water supplies which would principally be transfers from neighbouring areas (it's probably the only place in the UK where desalination on a relatively large scale could be useful - though Thames is unfortunately not particularly close to the sea but there's no reason Thames couldn't pay for desalination plants in Essex or Kent, and then pipe the equivalent amount of water into the Thames basin, it just costs money). So, as a model for technical solutions Thames water needs to look at other places than Scotland or Wales - how does the Paris area run it's water system, for example, and what can be learnt there?
But, if you're looking for examples of different management structures then the technical differences are not as important. If the concern with public ownership of water (and other utilities) is the potential for corruption then you can ask whether corruption is a problem for Scottish Water (it isn't); you can also ask whether paying large dividends to share holders from borrowing and non-investment in the network qualifies as corruption, in which case private ownership isn't a solution to prevent corruption any way.
Scottish Water is facing a capital investment shortfall of up to £400 million which may have implications for “risk, outcomes and customer benefits”.
The latest assessment of the public body by regulator the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS) puts the shortfall down to lower-than-expected revenue from charges and rising costs. It is understood that Scottish Water’s costs have risen faster than the consumer prices index, which is used by the utility to set customer bills.
Dublin’s water supply is at capacity, the Shannon pipeline is years from delivery, and the consequences for housing and investment are already being felt.
It may seem hard to believe after almost two months of near-continuous rain at the start of the year, but the Greater Dublin Area faces a water crisis that no amount of wet weather can fix. The water infrastructure serving Dublin was essentially designed for 500,000 people and is now serving a population three times that size and growing.
Reform’s welfare and benefits changes outlined.
It might be worth looking at this (which does go on a bit),
I’m particularly concerned about those born overseas, as that may affect my family and some friends, and towards the foot of the article there’s an apposite piece comparing Reform’s MPs majorities with the number of PIP claimants in those constituencies.
I am not sure why you think I am defending the idiots of Reform. What I meant is exactly what I said and no more - change is inevitable. We can either be doomerist about it or we can seek to find ways to survive based on models from elsewhere in the world where people have built ways to survive.
People who say "change is inevitable" are usually also saying "so let's not bother trying to do anything to make the change a bit smaller". If you don't want to be thought of saying that, you should qualify your statement.
Yes, we know that change is happening. If we all stopped burning carbon tomorrow, we won't miraculously get the climate of our childhood back: however we can (and should) choose to make the change that we have to adapt to less bad than it otherwise could be.
Comments
I find the word ablist just doesn't land as racist does with enough force and repugnance
The combination of racism and attacking those who cannot be exploited enough by their selfish greedy millionaire backers to satisfy them needs recognition.
We're basically looking at Nazis without the tanks. Yet.
Well, that sucks. Maybe the system should be reformed so budgets have funding for overtime?
Yeah, same in Canada. Five minutes ago, I thanked the barista who handed me my coffee.
I'm not sure I've ever heard a victorious candidate in Canada thank the election workers. We don't do the whole thing of all the candidates assembling for the count, so the elections workers aren't all present when the respective speeches are made.
There are a great many things in local authority budgets that could do with more funding. Case in point: many of the core elections staff in my local authority also hand Subject Access Requests so the Scottish Parliament elections pushed back handling of a lot of cases where people are asking for records of their time in care as children. Everything is short, from learning support staff in schools to care packages for those leaving hospital, from road repairs to children's play areas. Every year is another round of budget "savings", there's no slack left.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/aug/17/reform-uk-richard-tice-stop-tackling-climate-crisis-enjoy-heat
Tice mentions desalination in his spiel but the two principal methods of desalination (reverse osmosis and thermal distillation) both use large amounts of energy. You can join up the dots from there.
*An arsehole and a twat in one.
Add in the farmers who are seeing their drops fail, I'm sure they're enjoying worrying about where they'll find the 100s of grand that they lost. Which is not just a question of water supply, putting in measures to better store winter rain and reduce losses through broken pipes are good but more water to irrigate crops doesn't cut the air temperature very much (moist soil will increase cooling from evaporation - but to cool the air significantly we need more than just farm land watered more, but everywhere which will need rain).
I’m not sure many people do work on his farm. A few labourers plus an accountant on three times their wages.
There's very few people work on farms these days - my brother may be the only non-family worker on the one he works on.
Clarkson vs Jenrick would be worth popcorn as, despite being a gobshite who appears slightly to the left of Vlad Dracul, he was Pro-EU, and a signed-up Lib Dem. I suspect he'd chew Jenrick a second arsehole.
Oh, I don't think anyone doubted that Reform would do awful and stupid things if given power, it's more a matter of how close they're likely to get to it.
But there is some good news in the sense that the UK is not suddenly going to become the Sahara, we have models of agriculture from other places that we could adapt. One thing we do have as an island is a lot of water, albeit in a form that we would need to find ways to make usable in agriculture.
More of an issue than agriculture is infrastructure that cannot cope, which requires a lot of creative thinking and planning. Clearly it is possible to live well in temperatures which regularly exceed 30C, but also it is clear that we are not prepared for it.
It's a lot more complicated than you suggest here - there are no cost-free solutions to get potable water (or agricultural water, which may not be the same thing). For example if one wants to store water one needs large or small reservoirs with knock-on impacts of that choice.
Desalination can be expensive but does not necessarily need to be. Salt tolerant crops could be grown, agroforestry, and so on.
Water companies certainly are not helping when they scrape off profits but the hard reality is that the infrastructure needs investment and private investors are not going to risk their capital without a return.
In the current economy I have to accept that profits will accrue to the owners, but they shouldn’t make money in a one-horse race.
Risk free? Have you heard of Thames Water? The investors are at risk of losing all their capital investment
You might like to see this from The Guardian in 2023 and this from OFWAT.
Anyone who had invested in Thames Water in the “Golden Years” has done very nicely thank you, from Thames Water’s business method of using debt to fund dividends.
It's not zero risk. It just isn't.
Still, at least we'll be able to enjoy a few bottles of English wine before we go.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/aug/17/extreme-heat-more-dangerous-for-people-60-and-over-than-previously-thought
Still, I'll save the them the hassle of having to get rid of me by starving me, or denying me care...
I hope those supporting them will have enough £££ to pay for the care they might eventually need.
I am not sure why you think I am defending the idiots of Reform. What I meant is exactly what I said and no more - change is inevitable. We can either be doomerist about it or we can seek to find ways to survive based on models from elsewhere in the world where people have built ways to survive.
You keep changing the goalposts. The only reality is that water and sewerage costs money and requires investment. There is no alternative to that fact.
The question is how to pay for it. In a nationalised system the state takes the risk. In a privatised system the state has little risk but then the shareholders make a profit.
Yes it is obviously true that private water companies have taken short term gains at the expense of capital intensive investment. But there is no guarantee a nationalised system would be any better, and plenty of evidence of the reverse; nationalised water means big contracts, which means corruption. It also is incredibly difficult for politicians to sign off on expensive capital improvements when they have other competing priorities, often they do not even do the necessary improvements which leads to serious breakdowns.
Thames are clearly a failing company. The idea that profits are "risk-free" is untrue, the implication that a counter-factual alternative history where Thames was always nationalised and therefore better is unprovable but likely also wrong.
If you do not want me to reply then kindly stop using my handle. Thank you.
Yes, assuming they contracted out for such things, the alternative is doing things in house. [Personally, I think it's an improvement that the natural assumption is that corruption is -- at the very least -- a possibility].
Other models have been used elsewhere - not least in Scotland - which provide somewhat of a natural experiment.
Scotland and Wales both have alternative models as does the Republic of Ireland. The problem is that comparing these with the Thames area is extremely difficult.
But, if you're looking for examples of different management structures then the technical differences are not as important. If the concern with public ownership of water (and other utilities) is the potential for corruption then you can ask whether corruption is a problem for Scottish Water (it isn't); you can also ask whether paying large dividends to share holders from borrowing and non-investment in the network qualifies as corruption, in which case private ownership isn't a solution to prevent corruption any way.
Herald, November 2025
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25656492.scottish-water-warns-major-investment-shortfall/
Irish Times April 2026
https://www.irishtimes.com/special-reports/2026/04/30/dublin-faces-water-crisis-that-threatens-housing-supply-and-investment/
Neither system, although publicly owned, has escaped problems with capital investment.
Funny how they stop being keen on freedom of speech when somebody dares criticise the leadership.
It might be worth looking at this (which does go on a bit),
I’m particularly concerned about those born overseas, as that may affect my family and some friends, and towards the foot of the article there’s an apposite piece comparing Reform’s MPs majorities with the number of PIP claimants in those constituencies.
People who say "change is inevitable" are usually also saying "so let's not bother trying to do anything to make the change a bit smaller". If you don't want to be thought of saying that, you should qualify your statement.
Yes, we know that change is happening. If we all stopped burning carbon tomorrow, we won't miraculously get the climate of our childhood back: however we can (and should) choose to make the change that we have to adapt to less bad than it otherwise could be.