LostUruk

@losturuk

The world is run by small, frightened people who want you to be as small and frightened as they are. Always remember you are strong.

636 Following220 Followers2,030 Posts

Website Website Website Website Bluesky

Is this your profile?Claim it and losturuk.dirty.social is yours.Claim profile

LostUruk@losturuk· 12d

about 10 seconds. Including scroll time.

Picture od a child riding a bike with no hands.

LostUruk@losturuk· 12d

Gaza population tripled? I wonder how that happened.

Graph of palestinian refugees over time growing steadily from >1M in 1952 to 5.9M in 2020. 1.6M are registered in Gaza, about 3 time moret han the non-refugee populationg.

source : https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-12653633/Fascinating-charts-Gaza-Strips-demographics.html

LostUruk@losturuk· 14d

Prime ministers meeting royalty in a formal setting - Boris johnson David Cameron Kier Starmer Liz Truss

Boris Johnson metting the queen and not bending the knee

David Cameron meeting then Prince Charles and not bending the knee

Kier Starmer meeting King Charles and not bending the knee

Liz Truss meeting Queen Elizabeth and not bending the knee, then meeting King Charles and not bending the knee

LostUruk@losturuk· 21d

After hitting the headlines, Project Timber is no more. The negative connotations of ‘timber’ doesn’t play well – so officials have renamed the project and moved to the next phase of planning. As one person close to the situation told the BBC, “we will be having this same conversation in a year’s time”.

The solution to this is clear: do what almost every other country in the world does and run water as a publicly service for the benefit of the country. Given that the companies are effectively worthless, there would be no need to compensate the shareholders if they were taken into public ownership.

The Labour government has signalled that it has no desire do this. Other than some vague words about “cracking down” on sewage releases, it has said nothing about how it plans to deal with the water companies running out of money. If anything, fining them would only accelerate that process.

What can we do about it?
We’re building a mass non-payment campaign to target the financial model of private ownership. Many water firms — Thames Water the prime example — are desperate for investors to pump in more cash to keep them afloat.

Their pitch largely hinges on the near-guaranteed income from millions of customers. Don’t forget these firms are monopolies with no competition. Our job is to make that income look as shaky as possible.

We can put these firms out of business by disrupting their income — and follow it up by scaring off any potential investors who’d come into to bail them out.

The private ownership experiment has failed. It’s up to us to put it out of its misery.

LostUruk@losturuk· 21d

The third reference - -->

How did our water get so bad?
Take down the profiteers, end the scam. Turn the tide on 40 years of privatisation and failure.

5 min. readView original
As value is extracted from this national resource, the service provided is threadbare with sewage regularly and illegally discharged into rivers, little maintenance or upgrading of the system — and more stories about waterborne disease hitting water supplies in communities across the country.

How did we get into this situation?

Privatised water
The Water Act of 1989 created protected private monopolies, giving the new private owners exclusive concessions to provide water and sanitation services for a 25-year period.

To attract private investors the government sweetened the sale in a number of ways. While the new private owners of the water and sewerage companies paid a total of £7.6 billion for their acquisitions, the government wrote off as much as £5 billion of debt that the regional water boards then owed and provided an additional cash infusion totalling £1.5 billion, known as the ‘green dowry’. Private owners, who paid a net of around £6 billion, began with a clean financial slate and with substantial freedom to re-price their services.

Privatisation was supposed to lead to investment, improved services and lower bills. However, in fact the opposite has happened:

None of this is surprising. With customers who have no alternative to using their services and investors looking for the maximum return on the money they put in to buy the infrastructure, the system will inevitably reward and encourage companies who invest the minimum they can get away with, charge the most they can get away with.

In this system, success doesn’t mean developing a water system that provides affordable clean water to people and disposes of wastewater safely. Success means being very good at persuading the water regulators that the company is being run as well as it possibly can, while at the same time extracting as much money as possible for shareholders.

People are often surprised at at the huge salaries paid to water executives – for example the CEO of Thames Water, Chris Weston, earns approximately £2.3m every year. It’s a mistake to view this as being rewarded for incompetence. From the perspective of the shareholders who decide their salaries, the water company executives have done an excellent job.

The debt model
After the financial crisis in 2007, governments cut interest rates to historically low levels, making borrowing money extremely cheap. This would have a huge consequences for water in England and Wales.

After this, the amount of debt owed by water companies exploded. Between 2007 and 2012 Thames Water’s debt went from approximately £3 billion to £7 billion. This increase in debt wasn’t because it suddenly became harder to run a water company. With little immediate cost to taking on debt, the most profitable way of running a water company was to borrow to pay for maintenance while using customer bills to pay shareholders.

Key to establishing this model are infrastructure banks like the Australian company Macquarie. Macquarie bought Thames Water in 2006 and established a consortium of investors to run it. Having tripled the company’s debts and generated £2.8 billion in dividends, Macquarie sold its share in Thames Water in 2017. It then moved on to acquire a majority stake in Southern Water in 2021.

In 2022, interest rates suddenly rose. Having been loaded with debt, water companies suddenly faced huge increases in their repayments. At the same time, the consequences of decades of underinvestment started to hit, with billions needed to restore the crumbling infrastructure and receiving multiple fines piling up due to the failure of this infrastructure.

What does the government want to do?
Regulators and water company executives spent the first half of 2024 locked in negotiations to prop up the companies. Shareholders took a hard line, demanding that they be allowed to increase bills and ultimately being given permission to raise bills by 21%. Given the indebtedness of the companies and the scale of investment needed, this won’t be enough. Unless bills are raised further, or some other source of money is found, their collapse is a question of when, not if.

On 17 May, a representative from the Thames Water’s largest shareholder resigned from its board and the Canadian pension fund wrote down the value of its holdings to zero — effectively signalling that Thames Water is worthless. As the water companies fail to keep up with their debt repayments, they are less able to pay dividends to their shareholders, meaning that they have no incentive to invest and may even collapse themselves.

LostUruk@losturuk· 21d

First reference, a news story from the Mirror - The third reference is an overview of privatisation and its effects -->

Water firms in drought-hit UK flogged 35 reservoirs in five years - and built just two
There has been fury as water companies make millions of pounds by selling off water storage sites for housing, fishing and other uses while building just two small new reservoirs in five years

By Jack Clover

2 min. readView original
There has been fury as water companies make millions of pounds by selling off water storage sites for housing, fishing and other uses while building just two small new reservoirs in five years
Water companies in drought-hit Britain have flogged 35 reservoirs in five years – and built just TWO. Amid hosepipe bans and coastal sewage dumping they have made at least £26million from the sales.

‌

Old reservoirs have been converted for uses such as fishing and housing – and some are a haven for BMX fans. A union which uncovered the deals said: “The water industry is not fit for purpose.”

The news comes days after water firms dumped raw sewage on to 50 beaches as creaking systems failed to handle heavy rain after a long spell of drought – which experts now forecast could resume and last until autumn.

‌

It was also revealed that more than a trillion litres of water was lost via leaky pipes in England and Wales last year. Environmentalists have pushed for better infrastructure – such as more reservoirs and storage tanks.

The GMB union says companies have sold off 232 properties in England and Wales since 2017. These included 35 ex-reservoirs of which, the union estimates, 10 were in use until recently.

‌

Providers are obliged to stop using some reservoirs more than 100 years old. But just two small reservoirs have been opened in that time – a storm tank in Preston, Lancs and a contact tank in Oswestry, Shrops.

Southern Water is due to decommission 43 of 93 Victorian reservoirs by 2030. A 2018 report suggests it plans to add only two new reservoirs by 2025.

Andy Prendergast of the GMB said: “Reservoirs were built with public money but since the industry was privatised we’ve seen a lack of investment. They’re run for the interests of shareholders. Lack of capacity means less storage for sewage, leading to more dumping.”

Among 35 sites sold were Sadberge Reservoir near Darlington, Westwood Reservoir, Wilts, and Plumstead Common Reservoir in London.

In 2012 it emerged that Thames Water had sold 25 reservoirs since the 1980s. One disused complex in Cheshunt. Herts, made way for 249 flats.

Water UK said firms had completed major schemes in recent decades “to improve the resilience of water supplies” and added: “New reservoirs are subject to lengthy scrutiny from regulators... one new reservoir – Havant Thicket – is due to be completed by the end of this decade, and companies have made a further 18 proposals.”

LostUruk@losturuk· 21d

The second reference is the key I think from gov.uk, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs - TL:DR The government intervened to push these project through but as per reference 1, These will not make up for the ones they sold of. -->

Government steps in to build first major reservoirs in 30 years
New reservoirs will supply three quarters of a million homes and unlock the building of tens of thousands more as part of the Plan for Change

By Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

3 min. readView original
In a significant intervention to speed up delivery of much-needed reservoirs, the Environment Secretary Steve Reed has seized control of the planning process to build two major reservoirs for the first time since the 1990s.

This immediate step delivers on this government’s commitment to fast-track the delivery of nine new reservoirs, supporting its plans to get Britain building and deliver 1.5 million new homes by the end of this parliament.

Without these projects, national water supplies will remain under threat and new homes simply cannot be built.

With the government taking decisive control, two new reservoir projects in East Anglia and Lincolnshire have been awarded status of ‘nationally significant’. This means the project is so crucial that the planning process is escalated from a local level to the Secretary of State.

This milestone will streamline and accelerate the planning process, to shore up water resources for over three quarters of a million homes in England’s most water-stressed areas.

Rapid population growth, crumbling infrastructure that has been left to decline, and a warming climate mean the UK could run out of clean drinking water by the middle of the next decade without a major infrastructure overhaul.

To sustain our water supply into the future, the government will also legislate to radically streamline the planning process – meaning the ‘nationally significant’ designation is automatic for projects like these which are fundamental to our national water resilience.

This comes as part of the Plan for Change, which will bring forward building 150 major infrastructure projects this Parliament, creating new jobs and driving economic growth.

Water Minister Emma Hardy said:
Today we are backing the builders not the blockers, intervening in the national interest and slashing red tape to make the planning process faster to unblock nine new reservoirs.

This Government will secure our water supply for future generations and unlock the building of thousands of homes as part of the Plan for Change.

David Black, Chief Executive of Ofwat said:
We welcome the clear focus the Government is placing upon accelerating the delivery of supply and resilience schemes that will meet our future water needs and support economic growth. Alongside the £2 billion of development funding announced at our 2024 Price Review, this will help us to deliver the largest programme of major water infrastructure projects - including nine new reservoirs - seen in decades.

Meanwhile, the risk of drought this summer is increasing, with the Environment Agency urging water companies to do more to safeguard water supplies after the driest start to spring in 69 years.

Reservoirs, which collect and store water, are essential to keep water supply reliable and consistent even during dry weather – but no new reservoirs have been delivered since 1992, over 30 years ago.

Thousands of much needed homes in Cambridge and North Sussex are currently being blocked due to concerns around water scarcity.

Anglian Water are proposing to build the Lincolnshire Reservoir to the south of Sleaford, aiming to be operational by 2040. They have also partnered with Cambridge Water to propose the Fens Reservoir, located between the towns of Chatteris and March, set to be completed in 2036.

The Lincolnshire Reservoir would provide up to 166 million litres of water per day for up to 500,000 homes – that is the equivalent of more than 664 million cups of tea day. The Fens would supply a much needed 87 million litres to 250,000 homes in the driest region of the UK.

Both projects will now progress to consultation phase, where developers gather views from communities and stakeholders.

Water companies have committed to bring 9 new reservoirs online by 2050, in Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire, Somerset, Suffolk, Kent, East Sussex and the West Midlands. These reservoirs alone have the potential to provide 670 million litres of extra water per day.

LostUruk@losturuk· 22d

The cause is still mystery. Pic unrelated.

Anger from "Inside Out" blowing his top.

LostUruk@losturuk· Jul 4

After their last-but-one dog died my parents decided they wouldn't get another for fear it might outlast them. Notice I said last-but-one. My niece used to foster for a rescue charity. While she was at work she would leave the rescue dogs with my parents to look after and, well,

LostUruk@losturuk· Jun 29

To be honest none of them seem remotely match fit for an eating contest. Not one of them needed a belly wheel.

Figurine based on a 2000ad fatty as seen in the Judge Dredd strip, complete with belly wheel to help him move.

source: https://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/540673-Infinity%20Civilian%2C%20fatty%20with%20belly%20wheel.html

LostUruk@losturuk· Jun 19

Picture of football commentator John Motson alongside an old quote - "For those of you watching in black and white, Spurs are in the all-yellow strip"

LostUruk@losturuk· Jun 17

Not my interpretation it's written down in black and white. This is in response to "Independent review of protected site management on Dartmoor". See recommendations 27. The review - www.gov.uk/government/p... The response - www.gov.uk/government/p... TL:DR they get paid a premium to keep ponies

"Response to recommendation 27
Whilst we recognise the important role ponies play in conservation grazing on moorlands, ponies, like all livestock, exert grazing pressure.

If ponies were to be excluded from stocking density calculations, we would have no control over grazing pressure on the moorland, and the potential for over grazing would be increased.

This would prevent us from achieving required improvements in habitat condition and therefore impact the delivery of many of our environmental objectives. It would also have implications for animal welfare and the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of grazing on the moor. 

We are aware that previous agri-environment schemes have provided payment for keeping cattle, but not ponies, and that this has been linked with a decline in pony numbers. Under the new SFI and CS moorland actions, we will provide payment to farmers who include cattle, ponies or a combination of the two in their grazing regime.

Applicants must have a minimum percentage of their stock as either cattle or ponies, to be eligible."

"Applicants who are grazing with a native at-risk breed of pony (or cattle or sheep) will also be eligible for the native breed supplementary payment.

Additionally, it should be noted that resident pony populations are exempt from stock exclusion action, meaning farmers will not have to remove ponies from the moorland to receive payment for this action.

We believe that this new approach, which pays farmers for keeping ponies with an additional payment for native at-risk pony breeds, will provide fair reward for stocking with ponies at appropriate densities on moorlands.

This will support the healthy pony population being an essential part of Dartmoor’s future. This approach was supported by stakeholders during our content development meetings, including the Foundation for Common Land. Once the new offer is launched, we will monitor the impact on pony populations and take further action if required."

LostUruk@losturuk· Jun 17

It means they will be paid to keep the ponies on Dartmoor, and at a premium rate defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2024/04/10/a...).

"a supplement payment for grazing land using native breeds at risk.
This supplement will be available for livestock that are included in the native breed list on sensitive grazing habitats (currently this includes the semi-feral Dartmoor Hill Pony population on Dartmoor and the pedigree Dartmoor ponies)."

LostUruk@losturuk· Jun 14

Picture of a pub called the Slug and Lettuce.

LostUruk@losturuk· Jun 13

Wow! You read that really quickly. You did read it didn't you? Or are you just so anti Corbyn that you don't need evidence?

LostUruk@losturuk· Jun 9

From the Essex paper Educational attainments section :

Availability of UFSM improved children’s Reading test scores
at age 11 by approximately 4% of a standard deviation.
This effect size is equivalent to approximately two weeks
additional progress in school. This corresponds to a ‘small’
effect size in educational trials, but is not trivial, at around
half the magnitude of the impact of two years’ exposure to
the ‘Literacy Hour’, for example.
• We do not find consistent evidence of an impact of UFSM on
children’s Maths test scores.
• Effects on Reading are similar for pupils registered for
means-tested FSM, who see no change in the price of their
lunches, and those not registered for means-tested FSM, who
become newly entitled to a free lunch, and for whom the
rise in take-up was likely to be much larger. Finding similar
impacts for both groups supports there being benefits from
universal provision not just driven by individual take-up. For
example, the change in nutritional intake may mean children
newly taking up a UFSM exhibit less disruptive behaviour.
This may also benefit other children in their class.

LostUruk@losturuk· Jun 9

I'm all in favour of all those things for every school. Can you tell me where the report talks about them? Can't seem to find it for any of the four independent schemes. Did read the conclusions and recommendations for policy and practice though.

In summary, universal provision of FSM throughout primary
school helps ensure that all children have access to a meal of
high nutritional standards, yielding health and educational
benefits for these children, while also providing cost-of-living
support to families with school-age children. There are also
likely to be time saving for households no longer shopping for,
and assembling, packed lunches that we cannot capture. We
also do not take into account any employment benefits, due
to the increased number or hours of catering staff required to
facilitate the increase in take-up of school meals. This may also
reduce Government outlay on Universal Credit.
The impacts of providing UFSM that we have identified
are measured close-in-time to UFSM provision, but are likely
to yield long-term benefits to individuals and to society.
An increase in reading ability at age 10 has been shown to
promote earnings throughout adults’ working lives (Machin
and McNally, 2008). Childhood BMI has been shown to
be somewhat persistent into adulthood (Singh et al., 2008,
Simmonds et al., 2015). If effects on obesity are sustained,
this will affect healthcare costs and productivity. Total NHS
and productivity costs of obesity to the UK economy have
been estimated at £60bn per year, or £3,708 per person with
obesity (McKinsey 2014). Even where impacts do not persist,
there is evidence that reducing the prevalence of obesity in

childhood, or the lifetime duration of obesity, reduces risk
of later-life diseases (Fagherazzi et al., 2013; Tirosh et al.,
2011; Field et al., 2005; Abdullah et al., 2011), suggesting
there will be further benefits of reduced childhood obesity
through improved length of life and quality of life. Reductions
in overweight prevalence and downward shifts in BMI are
likely to also have positive effects on productivity, healthcare
spending and individuals’ health which are less often
quantified.11
Enabling continued high take-up of high-quality school
lunches among both FSM-registered and not-FSM-registered
pupils throughout primary school will be key to embedding
the short-term benefits of the scheme observed for children’s
bodyweight and attainment. This could entail efforts to
maintain and create an attractive and social school dining
environment through the use of staggered lunchtimes and
improvements or enlargements of kitchen and dining spaces,
or emphasis of school meals as ‘healthy’ rather than free, and
an integral part of the school day.

Parnham et al. (2022a, 2022b) caution that the benefits
of UFSM on obesity could be improved with higher-quality
meals, while budgetary pressures due to food and energyprice inflation may result in quality being reduced. This
poses a threat to the continued benefits of both national and
local authority schemes. Funding for school food should be
sufficient to provide hot meals meeting nutritional standards
and cover associated utility and staff costs.
Finally, to establish the longer-term impacts of both the
national UIFSM and local authority UFSM schemes, consistent
and comprehensive data are required. In particular, data on
take-up of school meals should routinely be collected and
published by the Department for Education separately for
infant and junior school students, and within each of these agegroups separately for FSM-registered and not-FSM-registered
pupils. At present, school-level take-up statistics are available
on all infants, and on all FSM-eligible children. They do not
differentiate take-up among infants by FSM-registration status,
and do not differentiate take-up among FSM-eligible children
by infant/junior status. Individual-level Census data do not
include school lunch take-up for any non-infants. At present
this lack of data limits research into the effectiveness of school
meal policies

LostUruk@losturuk· Jun 9

The tax gap is £47 billion. Almost 10x as much. The image below is a couple of years old but every spending sector is many time greater than the 5 billion. (image from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm...) Why do you want to keep the current system where children are going hungry?

UK government spending by sector for 2023-2024.

LostUruk@losturuk· Jun 4

He was a Labour politician who was rewarded for his attacks on Corbyn by being made antisemitism czar by the Conservatives. He is not Jewish. If you have to have an antisemitism czar at all, it should be a Jewish person. Read the rest of the wiki entry. Publicity stunts and false allegations.

On 28 April 2016, Mann confronted Ken Livingstone in a public stairwell in front of a news camera crew, calling him a "Nazi apologist" and a "fucking disgrace"[36] over Livingstone's remarks in a radio interview that Adolf Hitler, on coming to power, supported Zionism for the purpose of expelling Jewish people from Germany.[37] Labour's chief whip, Rosie Winterton, told Mann it was "completely inappropriate for Labour members of Parliament to be involved in very public rows on the television".[38]

Brexit
Mann announced he would vote to leave the European Union in the June 2016 referendum, saying he believed Labour voters "fundamentally disagree" with Labour's official stance.[42][43] His own constituency voted to leave by a margin of 68% to 32%.[44]

Mann was one of only three Labour MPs, along with Ian Austin and Kevin Barron, to defy a three-line whip and to vote for Theresa May's Brexit deal in the 15 January 2019 Meaningful vote. On 29 January 2019, Mann was one of seven Labour MPs to vote with the Conservative Government supporting Graham Brady's amendment mandating Theresa May to renegotiate the Irish backstop in the Withdrawal Agreement. The other six MPs were Austin, Barron, Jim Fitzpatrick, Roger Godsiff, Kate Hoey and Graham Stringer.[45]

On 3 April 2019, Mann was one of twelve Labour and ex-Labour MPs to vote alongside the Conservatives against the Cooper Bill, which had been supported by the Labour Party. Nonetheless, the bill passed the House of Commons with a difference of one vote. On 3 September 2019, Mann and Hoey were the only Labour MPs to vote with the Government in an attempt to prevent MPs from taking control of the house to block a potential no-deal Brexit, saying "I didn't vote with the government. I voted against an amendment that is deliberately calculated to block Brexit".[46]

Mann faced criticism for allegedly perpetuating racial stereotypes against Romani people and travellers in a booklet he produced on antisocial behaviour in 2007.[16]

LostUruk@losturuk· Jun 3

www.theguardian.com/politics/liv... He followed "I felt sickened" with criticism of the police. It's normal language construct, statement followed by explanation of statement. You would have been taught this in your English Language lessons.

"I have seen the body cam footage, it’s harrowing, and I have to say, as a father of a 17-year-old boy, I felt sick watching it.

It is absolutely right that the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) are looking at this.

There are clearly serious questions that need to be addressed, not least how accusations of racism informed the decision making in this case."

LostUruk@losturuk· Jun 3

This i360 vanity project? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighto...

"Although the Labour group on the council championed the project at the outset in 2006, and they maintained their support for the i360 for eight years, just a year before the local elections due to take place in May 2015 they changed their position and withdrew their support. Similarly, a year before the local elections due to take place in May 2023, the Labour group on the council began to describe the i360 as a "Green/Tory vanity project" noting that "with 100% public funding when private sector partners could not be found ... It was a flawed business model from the outset – as we tried to convince our Green and Conservative colleagues of at the time."[57] Yet, when the i360 opened in 2016, then council leader, Labour's Warren Morgan, spoke positively about the attraction, which he noted would be "a great addition to our seafront."[58] Councillor Morgan also sat on the planning committee which granted planning permission for the i360 in 2006. Irrespective of the reasons for the timing of any position change on the Labour group's part, the i360 has become a politically contentious issue in the city."

LostUruk@losturuk· May 30

John Rayson was making the same point you are, that people with experience should be paid more because of that experience. Trinket was pointing out that this is not always the case and that young people are often paid less simply because they are young. That was the post you responded to.

Trinket
‪@trinketbirdy.bsky.social‬

Follow
Pay people the same for doing the same job. You're not being paid for experience they routinely pay young people less for the same job just because of age which is outrageous. I got paid less than an older person at my first job despite having specialist knowledge they didn't have.

Claire
‪@clairepull.bsky.social‬

Follow
Nonsense. You could never apply that to all professions. Police officers for instance, not all rise through the ranks, you've got PC's with 15/20 years experience who are invaluable to the profession and should never be paid the same as a new starter.

LostUruk@losturuk· May 29

Me resisting the urge to make a "Pussy Galore" joke.

The man from the two buttons meme, sweating and looking stressed.

LostUruk@losturuk· May 29

But how would we ever get reusable spaceships without the billionaires? Pic unrelated.

Picture of a space shuttle flying over the Earth.

LostUruk@losturuk· May 27

He could go back to his original title "The Demon Lord Tony Blair"

The famous demon eyes poster from the 1997 election. It features an image of Tony Blair on a black background with a torn paper effect across his eyes and a pair of red demon eyes showing instead.

Fair play, the Tories got this one right.

LostUruk@losturuk· May 22

Yep, this one. TL:DR, they can ask if you are allowed to use that particular toilet but if you say yes, that's it.

"13.179 Where there remains a genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a request for an individual to confirm their sex, then the service provider, person performing public functions or association should consider what action is proportionate in the circumstances. There is no type of official record or document in the UK which provides reliable evidence of sex. For example, sex on passports and driving licences may be changed with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), and birth certificates may reflect the acquired gender of someone who has a GRC. Therefore, it is unlikely to be proportionate or practical to ask for further evidence of a person’s sex. In such circumstances, it is likely to be necessary to weigh up the relevant factors to decide whether to exclude the individual from the service or association or to permit them to continue to access it."

LostUruk@losturuk· May 21

So what's the problem?

LostUruk@losturuk· May 20

Actually Heath in '73.

"The Price Commission was set up in the UK under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, alongside the Pay Board, in an attempt to control inflation. The Conservative government of Edward Heath, elected at the 1970 general election, had previously abolished the Prices and Incomes Board in November 1970, shortly after taking power, relying on competition to keep prices down. At the same time, the Industrial Relations Act 1971 was intended to rein in the trades unions.

The Conservatives' economic policy was not successful, and the government took a U-turn. A 90-day freeze of pay and prices (as well as rents and dividends) was introduced on 6 November 1972 under the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972. This was replaced by a Price and Pay Code, which strictly limited increases, supervised by a new Price Commission and a Pay Board."

LostUruk@losturuk· May 20

Ah yes,

LostUruk@losturuk· May 19

"Put more things back under stronger public control: energy, housing, water, transport. “I’ve done that with buses in Greater Manchester." So Manchester busses are nationalised? Not so much. Stronger public control =/= Public ownership.