The UK has chronic issues with energy prices (I seem to remember seeing the highest in Europe?), but we don’t see energy companies undercutting one another, so it’s hard to argue that they are actually in competition.

I may misunderstand the situation, so please correct me, but isn’t the issue due to the separation of the energy production from the home suppliers?

The rules as I understand them are that there is a “most favoured nation” rule, so energy production from Octopus (for example) has to go onto the national grid where they are paid for their production, because that’s how you get electricity into homes (unless you want to build our own electricity “alt-net”). Octopus the consumer sales then have to buy the electricity at the wholesale rates which they then sell to you.

Why you can’t get a credit on your account for the excess Octopus are paid for their cheap wind instead of expensive gas, I don’t know but I can only assume its because they aren’t actually the same company. What it also means is that we will never have cheap electricity until we are 100% moved off any and all expensive electricity sources.

What I’m disappointed in as well is that councils can’t get involved with turbines. Any monies generated could be put towards everyone’s council tax, it may help get past NIMBYs if they know they are getting a tax break because of it and it improves energy independence.

@Fluke@lemm.ee

This is precisely it.

A: several businesses competing to provide the service

This is really the main argument, if two companies supply a widget then they will both keep undercutting each other to gain custom. Hopefully that will come from identified efficiency gains through better production methods or removal of middle management who drain the budget without providing value.

However what is more likely to happen is that quality will decrease, think bulking out chocolate with palm oil, which then depends on the informed customers part to avoid reduced quality and support those that identify real cost savings. But that is unlikely to happen here as everyone jams crappy palm oil in their products and we can’t easily reward those that provide a proper chocolate.

You can see the support for this on the c/buybritish and c/buyeuropean groups but it requires real effort, an effort that most people don’t have the time for.

Are you seriously trying to say that AV is no better than FPTP?

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/alternative-vote/

Alternative voting is a form of ranked voting. To claim that it’s harder for independents to get elected is either completely false or the reform website does a bad job of explaining it. It would make it easier for independents to get elected because people can put their names down without throwing away their vote.

That PR site is NOT what is actually being sued.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/04/humble-bundle-creator-brings-antitrust-lawsuit-against-valve-over-steam/

The actual suit complains that you can’t resell keys for less.

Yes, I’ve always found jobs via linked in.

Though, I have been most successful through having recruiters reaching out to me directly rather than applying for jobs. Applying directly to companies is a recipe for being ignored.

Yes, we know.

And you are wrong.

This is completely incorrect.

The rule is that

You cannot generate Steam codes and sell them on alternative storefronts for less than you would sell them for on Steam for a similar length of time.

There is absolutely no rule saying that you cannot sell your game on alternative store fronts for less. There isn’t even a rule saying that you can’t sell Steam keys on alternative store fronts for less than you are currently selling them of Steam. Just not always selling Steam keys on alternative store fronts without at least sometimes selling them for that price on Steam.

Preferred is a very strong word as a summary of my position.

I said that I preferred two different voting methods for the two different levels of chambers, and as such suggested PR for one of them.

I would prefer removal of the Lords and devolution of English powers to regional authorities leaving the renamed Commons to deal with national/international positions and delegating basically everything that would get devolved to Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland to the three Regional Authorities.

I already said that I honestly don’t care.

You keep saying PR as if it’s one thing.

In my opinion, PR is either open or closed list systems. STV falls under alternative voting methods (from my point of view), because it does not proportionally represent. Either way it really doesn’t matter because as my first reply said, that’s not the bit I give the biggest shit about.

Replacement of FPTP is a start, while replacement of our terrible two house system where we have no say over the second house would be better, and replacement of both would be best.

STV for both is fine, I was just suggesting a candidate based system for one house and a party based system for the second to try and counter too much of the “one policy candidates” but not eliminate the ability for people to show what they really care about.

Not that we will get either, so I’m not sure why you are quite so aggressive about it.

There is a whole lot more to my post that that half a sentence.

But basically saying that we should have two different methods of representation in the two houses, both by coverage and by voting method to prevent certain areas/parties overwhelming, and being overwhelmed by others.

Why should London get to dictate how the North is governed simply by there being more people, but for like, why should the North get to dictate how money is spent in London?

There should be county councils for deciding local matters, “super councils” to decide regional matters and a national government to decide national and overseas policies.

On the other hand, if the only issue is that I picked PR for one and STV for another, and you would prefer a different voting mechanism then I’m completely fine with that too. However having PR, AV or whatever would be much better, IMHO, than the current Lords which never replaces it’s representation, and I disagree that it would be exactly the same as the current state.

I’m not suggesting execution. Just that they are outside of government.

The BBC can carry on fawning over them, just like all the other irrelevant celebrities with no real world use.

Would it?

Genuinely curious, the world has massively changed in the past 6 months. Perspectives could have changed, is movement with the EU as bad as isolation from even the US?

One of the issues with these percentage stats is that we were not as big of purchasers of Tesla as the rest of Europe so it’s going to be harder for us to have as large of drops.

If you look, France has dropped that much just to catch up with us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

The lib Dems campaigned and we had a referendum. Don’t make shit up.

The population chose fear mongering over a better voting system.

Replace commons with STV, and Lords with PR.

Devolve English powers away from Commons and Lords too.

Ideal set up would be:

3 regional assemblies, cut England in a Y shape to give approximately similar population regions, voted through PR. All regional level, domestic decisions are delegated. Replaces the Lords.

Rename the Commons to British Senate (or whatever) and they control national decisions and general UK policy.

Monarchy is given the remainder of the existing one generation to continue to receive the rents, but after Charles will be disbanded as a government institution.

However all they appear to advocate for, are the things that historically we have done, and are mentioned in the article.

Veganic Farming? Its just Vegans trying to hijack a normal process of crop rotation and cover cropping so they can make some snide remark that apparently it is animal feed that’s the problem.