Do you know that the world adds 1GW of solar every other day? Thorium molten salt reactor is on schedule? Hydrogen can now be transported as powder in trucks under atmospheric pressure and ordinary temperature?

So why is UK electricity so expensive?

Surely the renooaballs should make it cheaper..

None of these reactors are online yet, and

hydrogen powder power is only theoretical !

"Don't get high on your own supply"

So why is UK electricity so expensive?

Surely the renooaballs should make it cheaper..

 

Profiteering. Those investors into renewables got an excellent return since the war in Ukraine.

Do you see a correlation between high tax items and expensive items? This is because our political system can't run any service directly. If it does for example public transport, it can't raise much taxes on it. You end up with protected sectors like energy, housing and the FTSE100.

Edited August 10, 2025Aug 10 by Woosh

Profiteering. Those investors into renewables got an excellent return since the war in Ukraine.

Do you see a correlation between high tax items and expensive items? This is because our political system can't run any service directly. If it does for example public transport, it can't raise much taxes on it. You end up with protected sectors like energy, housing and the FTSE100.

Profiteering yes, gouging, arranged between gov and corp. What do we call it when these 2 work together children? 1 name begins with Comm.. and the other with Fasc... but both end up the same, bankrupt nation.

Also obvious is that if we pay for Legacy generation, and Wind, and Solar, whether they generate or not, it becomes 3 times more expensive. And since we must have legacy for grid to remain stable, the other 2 are redundant. What a genius system! When SMR's come along, will it become 4 times more?

Profiteering yes, gouging, arranged between gov and corp. What do we call it when these 2 work together children? 1 name begins with Comm.. and the other with Fasc... but both end up the same, bankrupt nation.

Tax money has got to come from somewhere. What better place than something everyone has to pay for? The bad part is no government raises enough taxes to keep up with spending and it's not only in the UK but all of the EU as well. I follow US politics a lot since brexit and I can't see any thing to be cheerful about where the West is going.

Apparently, Trump demands universities to pay billions to settle his investigations into their wokiness, 15% of Nvidia's and Amd's sales to China for export licenses. The money is put into a special pot for trump's projects.

This is something you'd believe of a third world country.

 

 

Tax money has got to come from somewhere. What better place than something everyone has to pay for? The bad part is no government raises enough taxes to keep up with spending and it's not only in the UK but all of the EU as well. I follow US politics a lot since brexit and I can't see any thing to be cheerful about where the West is going.

"And the poli-tic-shuns say

More taxes will solve everything

And the band plays on.."

The Temptations - Ball of Confusion - 2001

 

This video taxes my patience.. less taxes, less wars!

Tho it does suggest the simplicity and economy of having ONE FLAT TAX RATE, say 10%, no exceptions.

"And the poli-tic-shuns say

More taxes will solve everything

And the band plays on.."

The Temptations - Ball of Confusion - 2001

 

This video taxes my patience.. less taxes, less wars!

Tho it does suggest the simplicity and economy of having ONE FLAT TAX RATE, say 10%, no exceptions.

The elephant in the room are the economists. When I was a child, they were a rare species. Now universities churn them out in thousands every year.

They twist facts into statistics which are supposed to be scientific and must be trusted. Statistics are then used by politicians to divide people into wokes and orange supremacists, create emergencies, crisis and wars. They tell us that they, and only they, have the solution and it's very simple.

I am well aware that this guy is something of an eccentric, but his view of why UK government fails (and it fails whichever party is in power, time and again) is right on the money.

 

He KNOWS who really runs government, because he has been there, and he explains why time after time ministers can never get things done that need to be done.

 

Well worth watching.

 

Cummings will always remind me of his interview by the BBC sitting in the garden at the rear of no 10 and no 11 explaining why he went for a drive to test his eyesight. Little believable, entitled a little self agrandising as he kind of believed he was among low IQ people. He may be right on the last point though.

Did you read his ad for weidos and misfits?

Cummings will always remind me of his interview by the BBC sitting in the garden at the rear of no 10 and no 11 explaining why he went for a drive to test his eyesight. Little believable, entitled a little self agrandising as he kind of believed he was among low IQ people. He may be right on the last point though.

Did you read his ad for weidos and misfits?

I've read a lot of his material. Some I find tiresome, but often he is right on the money about what is wrong with the way this country is governed. ANYONE who thinks the way the civil service works against ministers in this country is Ok, needs their head examining.

 

I am VERY keen that the democratic mandate of government is respected and facilitated. To deliberately frustrate elected governments in the way our courts and civil service do all the time, is a monstrous betrayal of democracy. I didn't vote Labour, but THEY are our elected government and their policies must be carried out efficiently and effectively - otherwise we are a sham democracy.

 

I suggest that you actually watch the video and make up your mind about what he says rather than talking about Barnard Castle - which was a matter of complete triviality anyway. While Cummings was being lambasted and hounded for taking his family out of London when his home was under siege from extremist demonstrators who were making threats, so he could leave his family at his parents farm in the North (perfectly allowable under the regulations at the time) - the great author of lock down regulations and doom scenarios Professor Neil Ferguson was entertaining visits from his married lover, who drove a considerable distance to be with him. Nobody brings that up though.

 

Anyway - why not watch the video. It deals with real obstacles in doing anything decent in this country - the massive dead weight of quangos, foreign courts, planning rules, civil service ineptitude and deliberate frustration of government policy. Yes Minister was a mild version of the reality. We all pay dearly for this shambles.

 

There is a LOT more to Cummings than you obviously know.

One of the big themes of Cummings thought is that the Civil Service predominantly recruits the wrong kinds of people, that it also rewards failure, that government departments waste vast amounts of money costing us all dearly and that it allows mediocre people to rise to positions of very great power. That power is power over government policy - whether it succeeds or fails is in their hands and they NEVER EVER get sacked when there are monstrous c ock ups. Worse still, at the higher levels, every two years they all move to new jobs in entirely different knowledge domains so as soon as they might be said to know about a certain kind of policy domain, they get bumped off to something they know nothing about and they sit between the government and the action and execution of government policy, frequently wrecking whatever they are supposed to be doing.

 

Cummings criticisms of Civil Service and his explanations of why Minister after Minister fails, need to be listened to - even if he is a bit weird. I'd say that in almost any meeting he was ever in in government, he was very likely the smartest person in the room.

I did watch some of that video by the way. I suspect that you and I will never agree on the necessity that civil servants must serve ministers of the day a) apolitically and b) within the confines of the laws because they have the knowledge of laws and the expertise on how things are run while their masters only have ambitions and greed so prone to disregard laws and process.

How many times ministers dream up projects then asked their departmental staff to prepare the budget just so when said ministers go to parliament then misrepresent their project budget to the house. How many times governments of the day make promises to look good on TV and leave the bills to the next government. Cummings did not work at the coalface like civil servants. Trust me, many of those civil servants have a higher academic achievements and IQ than him. Unlike him and his bunch, they are not weidos and misfits either.

Edited August 12, 2025Aug 12 by Woosh

You were right in the first nine words of the second sentence.

Trust me, many of those civil servants have a higher academic achievements and IQ than him. Unlike him and his bunch, they are not weidos and misfits either.

 

I am sure there are some clever and effective civil servants, but as a machine for executing government policy, the system is obstructive and damaging and inept.

 

A few ideas to temper your admiration for the organisation - not that I should have to remind you if you were abreast of the issues:

AI Overview

 

The UK Civil Service has faced criticism for a range of failures, including poor performance management, inadequate learning from past mistakes, and a lack of transparency in some cases. These failings have contributed to public inquiries like Grenfell and Infected Blood, and have led to concerns about the service's ability to adapt to changing needs and effectively implement government policies.

 

Specific areas of concern include:

• Performance Management:
  A significant issue is the difficulty in addressing poor performance, with many managers reportedly moving underperforming staff to other roles rather than addressing the underlying problem. This can lead to a culture where strong performance is not adequately rewarded, and poor performance is not effectively tackled.
   
   
  
• Learning from Mistakes:
  Despite public inquiries and reports highlighting failings in various areas, there are concerns that the Civil Service does not consistently learn from past errors, leading to the repetition of similar mistakes.
   
   
  
• Transparency and Accountability:
  Some have criticized a lack of transparency in decision-making processes, particularly in cases where there have been significant failures. This lack of openness can undermine public trust and make it difficult to hold those responsible accountable.
   
   
  
• Adaptability and Innovation:
  The Civil Service has also faced criticism for its perceived resistance to change and its difficulty in adapting to new challenges, including those posed by digital technologies. There are concerns that the service is not adequately equipped to respond to the evolving needs of society and the economy.
   
   
  
• Resource Management:
  Some argue that austerity measures have led to understaffing and inadequate resources in key areas, contributing to failures. However, others argue that even with sufficient resources, the Civil Service has struggled to deliver effective outcomes.
   
   
  
• Culture and Leadership:
  Criticisms have also been leveled at the culture within the Civil Service, with some suggesting that it can be defensive, risk-averse, and resistant to change. There are also concerns about the quality of leadership, particularly in relation to performance management and the ability to drive through necessary reforms.
   
  

Consequences of failures:

• Public Inquiries and Scandals:
  Failures in the Civil Service have contributed to major public inquiries and scandals, such as Grenfell, Infected Blood, and the Post Office IT scandal, resulting in significant loss of life and public money.
   
   
  
• Erosion of Public Trust:
  The repeated occurrence of failures erodes public trust in government institutions and their ability to deliver effective services.
   
   
  
• Hindered Policy Implementation:
  Weaknesses in the Civil Service can hinder the effective implementation of government policies, leading to delays, inefficiencies, and ultimately, failure to achieve desired outcomes.
   
   
  
• Damage to the UK's International Reputation:
  Significant failures within the UK Civil Service can damage the UK's international reputation and undermine its credibility on the world stage.
   
  

What you need to remember is that ALL government action is carried out through teh civil service. Think of it like a surgeon doing robotic surgery. He does not hold the knife or the forceps, he only operates the robotic device remotely. This has direct application to events such as the covid disaster and it was a disaster in many ways.

 

Uninformed people and most of the newspapers, comment about government performance as though ministers THEMSELVES performed ineptly when for example, money is wasted, or a defence programme or an infrastructure project becomes vastly more expensive or takes far too long to be completed, or as in the case of covid, lots of people, died.

 

Are they REALLY that naive that they actually think a buffoon like Boris Jonson was controlling everything, or Hancock? Take the successes - there is a lot of talk about the pretty remarkable speed and success of the Covid vaccine programme. It was completed in record time, and was delivered to many millions of people with a remarkable efficiency so that initially, we had far more people vaccinated than many of our neighbours -probably almost all. Does anyone think that Boris the clown and Hancock DID THAT?

 

Of course not. The vaccine programme was in the hands of remarkable managers and biological experts - notably Kate Bingham, who had massive expertise and teh management experience to drive it forward and recruit brilliant people from outside the civil service to make it work.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/kate-bingham-appointed-chair-of-uk-vaccine-taskforce

 

Although Johnson and Hancock would like to claim the credit, all they did was hand her the power and tell her to spend whatever she needed to.

 

Ministers can achieve nothing on their own. They need people like her - preferably not the usual worthless civil servants we get saddled with to bring new drive and effectiveness.

 

The Ministry of Defence is a notorious hidebound, useless clique of worthless dross. If we had a conventional war with Russia we would be stuffed. They are still trying to buy tanks and obsolete cr ap. Drones? What are drones? The PM and Ministers might allow the Ministry of Defence to spend 2.5% and soon 3% of GDP on defence, but if history is anything to go by it will be p issed up the wall on obsolete rubbish, or aircraft carriers with no planes on them so we had to borrow some French aircraft to save face.

 

Minsters are usually lawyers, journalists or worthless PPE graduates, and people who have spent their entire lives in parliament as parliamentary assistants, with no real life real world experience. Without the right calibre of Civil Servant, they are helpless and bound to fail. This is why Cummings sought to recruit different kinds of people into the Civil Service. He brought in Kate Bingham.

 

Go and watch that video throughout rather than mocking him for being a bit weird. He is 100% right about why government after government fails and why our infrastructure takes so ridiculously long to get developed.

 

What is the UK capability for manufacturing artillery shells? Negligible

Edited August 13, 2025Aug 13 by Tony1951

AI Overview

 

The UK Civil Service has faced criticism for a range of failures, including poor performance management, inadequate learning from past mistakes, and a lack of transparency in some cases. These failings have contributed to public inquiries like Grenfell and Infected Blood, and have led to concerns about the service's ability to adapt to changing needs and effectively implement government policies.

it's a broad subject. I would like to know the prompt you put into your AI. Let's address the first point via the examples you provided. Civil service we talk about here is essentially Whitehall staff. They work directly under their political masters. Their job is to deploy the ideas of their masters within departmental budget and the laws. The infected blood case was caused by policies of the day: privatisation and cost cutting. There is a wiki page on this. Civil Servants placed orders with pharmaceutical firms for infected blood products under direction of their ministers. Grenfell is caused by a number of reasons, mostly by the local borough. I can't see why those in Whitehall should bear the blame for local mistakes.

Learning from Mistakes:

Despite public inquiries and reports highlighting failings in various areas, there are concerns that the Civil Service does not consistently learn from past errors, leading to the repetition of similar mistakes.

Those mistakes are made by ministers, not those working and following orders under them.

You place a few people with low IQ at the wheel of the Titanic, what would you expect?

 

Hindered Policy Implementation:

Weaknesses in the Civil Service can hinder the effective implementation of government policies, leading to delays, inefficiencies, and ultimately, failure to achieve desired outcomes.

This is a typical excuse of those who should not lead in the first place. It's like Trump blaming the head of Bureau of Labour Service. Trump caused uncertainty, businesses stop hiring on top of Musk sacking about 200,000 posts. When the count came in, Trump blamed the BLS for it.

 

You can see where I am going with this. Fundamentally, people with slick presentatation skills or selling abilities without high IQ and with not much much real life expertise go into politics. Some will successfully climb the ladder and get given the job of spending 500 billions of our money every year. Would that happen in the private sector? Sure, some will inherit family businesses but there is a big difference. Those inherit family businesses have at least been inside the business a lot more than politicians and it's their money they lose.

People like Cummings will always blame someone else when their projects fail.

Edited August 13, 2025Aug 13 by Woosh

Prompt was "uk civil service failures" on Google search.

 

Watch this video, I urge you to watch the whole thing.

 

Especially from about minute ten onwards.

 

 

Cummings is one of the most effective managers we ever had in politics.

 

He ran Vote Leave and Boris Jonson's election campaign in 2019 and was his chief of staff in 2019-20. He is not the half wit you think he is.

 

His main gripe is the way management works in government.

Prompt was "uk civil service failures" on Google search.

 

Watch this video, I urge you to watch the whole thing.

 

Especially from about minute ten onwards.

 

 

Cummings is one of the most effective managers we ever had in politics.

 

He ran Vote Leave and Boris Jonson's election campaign in 2019 and was his chief of staff in 2019-20. He is not the half wit you think he is.

 

His main gripe is the way management works in government.

Cummings should know better. He's got a good education so he should have done better than the usual right wing approach, blame the foreigners. That is: 1) this is a crisis, we must act now 2) This issue will threaten our security 3) We have a solution and it's very simple if only we get given a chance.

Following their logic, illegal immigrants are the problem. Their solutions are:

a) dump them back on French beaches where they came from. Wait, we've left the EU so we can't do that. Whose fault is that?

b) dump them on some uninhabited island. We can't do that either because of our UN membership, we must respect their human rights or we'll get sued later big time.

c) Put them in jail. We can't do that either because they claim refugee status. A lot of Brits do not realise that crossing a border without a valid visa is not a criminal offence. Government have to go through due process before they can be jailed and deported.

d) Do as SW suggested: shoot them and their boat from the air. Would that be something for a right wing future government to consider?

Those mistakes are made by ministers, not those working and following orders under them.

 

This is a typical excuse of those who should not lead in the first place.

 

I am not interested in US politics and it is confusing and unhelpful to bring that in so I edited out those references. I am talking about Cummings view of the Civil Service only;

 

Whatever the inadequacies of individual ministers (which are legion) we have a system in which civil service failure is massive and applies whichever government is in power. Ministers can do nothing on their own. They issue instructions. They are not carried out properly or with energy and speed. This is a fact that has afflicted governments of all parties.

 

People like Cummings will always blame someone else when their projects fail.

 

Please point at a project which Cummings led which failed. I am not aware of any.

 

https://chatgpt.com/share/689c50dd-f568-8001-9345-b6a50615765f

Cummings should know better. He's got a good education so he should have done better than the usual right wing approach, blame the foreigners. That is: 1) this is a crisis, we must act now 2) This issue will threaten our security 3) We have a solution and it's very simple if only we get given a chance.

Following their logic, illegal immigrants are the problem. Their solutions are:

a) dump them back on French beaches where they came from. Wait, we've left the EU so we can't do that. Whose fault is that?

b) dump them on some uninhabited island. We can't do that either because of our UN membership, we must respect their human rights or we'll get sued later big time.

c) Put them in jail. We can't do that either because they claim refugee status. A lot of Brits do not realise that crossing a border without a valid visa is not a criminal offence. Government have to go through due process before they can be jailed and deported.

d) Do as SW suggested: shoot them and their boat from the air. Would that be something for a right wing future government to consider?

 

This is boll ox. Cummings is not a conservative. He despises the party's performance.

 

He is issue driven, primarily opposed to bad management in government.

 

He criticises all parties performance. He is about effectiveness and action against problems NOT against immigrants - but against problems.

 

You don't know who he is, but bring your own prejudices to the table and bang on about those things. WATCH THE WHOLE VIDEO otherwise it is pointless talking with you further.

Whatever the inadequacies of individual ministers (which are legion) we have a system in which civil service failure is massive and applies whichever government is in power. Ministers can do nothing on their own. They issue instructions. They are not carried out properly or with energy and speed. This is a fact that has afflicted governments of all parties.

that has been our system for hundreds of years, as seen in 'Yes Minister'. What's new?

He just blames someone else when his/their half baked projects fail.

Would Cummings be a better Sir Humphries? I doubt that. He came from the same old fashoined British system: private schools, Oxbridge, politics. What private schooling gives you is the training on how to speak with confidence, aka BS your way. That's how more of them got into Oxbridge than the more numerous publicly educated straight-As students in the first place.

If we had a government of ANY type that was worth its salt, it would repeal the Human Rights Act which has paralysed ANY government action against all kinds of problems. WE are prevented from deporting the WORST of criminals by judges claiming their rights will be infringed. Labour too are finding the same thing.

 

You say that it is not a crime to enter the UK without a visa WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!

 

AI Overview

 

Entering the UK without valid leave (i.e., a visa or other permission) is a breach of Section 3(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. This is considered illegal entry and is a criminal offense under the Act, according to the GOV.UK website. Additionally, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 creates further offenses for those entering without entry clearance (visa).

 

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Immigration Act 1971, Section 3(1)(a):
  This section prohibits non-British citizens from entering the UK without leave to enter, as granted under the Act.
   
   
  
• Illegal Entry:
  Entering the UK without the required leave is defined as illegal entry in Section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971.
   
   
  
• Criminal Offense:
  Knowingly entering or remaining in the UK without authorization is a criminal offense, though criminal prosecutions are not common.
   
   
  
• Nationality and Borders Act 2022:
  This act further strengthens immigration laws by making it an offense to arrive in the UK without entry clearance (a visa).
   
   
  
• Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971:
  This section covers the offense of arriving in the UK without the required permission.
   
   
  
• Entry Without Leave:
  Even if not explicitly using a false document, entering without proper authorization is a violation.
   
  

 

Not a crime to enter without visa or leave to enter? What planet are you on?

 

d) Do as SW suggested: shoot them and their boat from the air. Would that be something for a right wing future government to consider?

 

I don't know or care who SW is.

 

Cummings has never suggested such a thing.

 

Why do you divert the argument with such a rubbish idea.

 

In the video he suggested the boats would stop by next week if the Navy arrested all boats and deported the people for illegal entry and also put the enabling criminal gangs on a list of terrorists and sent special forces to wack the leaders like we did with IS.

 

What is wrong with that?

 

Do you consider it OK to sit back wringing hands while criminals become billionaires by ferrying people illegally into our country?

 

How long will you put up with this? Is this a country or a failed state whose Parliament is constantly over ruled by foreign courts and just takes it? This is not a Conservative problem. Starmer is in the same morass and is sitting wringing his hands and sweating blood with no solution. We have 50,000 illegal arrivals since Starmer came to power. HOW MANY HOUSES HAS HE BUILT SINCE HE CAME TO POWER? How does the constant flood of unwelcome and illegal arrivals affect the cost of housing - rented and owner occupied?

next week if the Navy arrested all boats and deported the people for illegal entry and also put the enabling criminal gangs on a list of terrorists and sent special forces to wack the leaders like we did with IS.

 

What is wrong with that?

I did address this point previously. Ministers can BS voters on TV but Civil servants have to follow due process. We'll have to expand our judiciary system to put a lot more of them through court where statistically about 75% of them win against the home office.

 

) Put them in jail. We can't do that either because they claim refugee status. A lot of Brits do not realise that crossing a border without a valid visa is not a criminal offence. Government have to go through due process before they can be jailed and deported.