ads36

this is no argument for not improving public transport. which will reduce car use making *your* car journeys a little easier.

an estimated (?) £2billion will be added to the nation's food bill at the end of April. even the telegraph are telling us about it now Jacob Rees Mogg, of course, is moaning : "These checks are an unnecessary act of self harm that will increase prices in an era of inflation".

so more or less meaningless. 'services' ? i'll save the champagne till i hear more details if you don't mind.

i'm sure we'll never really know, but i'm increasingly wondering how much of this mess is rooted in the closure of the surestart centres.

that idea is something you've invented - so that you can complain about it. better public transport doesn't solve *all* our transport needs, but it's close. (added benefit - better public transport results in fewer people driving, easing congestion a bit)

here's the great news - more or less everything that we need to do to reduce our contribution to climate change is stuff we need to be doing anyway. better public transport, home insulation programs, more nuclear power, more renewables, etc. where's the hardship? (China are the world leader on increasing their supply of renewable power)

expected to complete a rigorous certification process later this year. it seems they already have a dozen (?) orders/reservations.

we live in a very benign climate - here in Britain. it's rarely too cold/hot/dry/wet to live and grow crops. If it gets a bit warmer/colder/wetter/drier, we could be forgiven for not really noticing. hundreds of millions (billions?) of people are living more exposed lives, in places closer to the limits of viability. yeah, sure, humans can adapt. but when the driver is climate change, that adaptation will means hundreds of millions of people moving somewhere less hostile to farming/agriculture.

these still aren't real.

which evidence is dubious - and why do you doubt it? and i'm sure you wouldn't mind sharing a few examples of these many rules and restrictions...?

there's lots of commercial sense. South Yorkshire has a strong (and growing !) reputation for high value manufacturing/engineering. An active airport would make an excellent hub for relevant businesses/activity.

i have asthma, i've on the same low dose of cheap meds for decades now, it's fine. But every 6 months my prescriptions are frozen, and only made available again after i've had a 'review'. so i've got to phone up for a review - which takes 45 mins to get through. then i wait, for my prescriptions to unfreeze, which doesn't happen, so i have to phone up again to remind them, another 45mins. then i can request the medication, except they forget to send it to the pharmacy. so another 45mins on the phone to remind them to send the order to the pharmacy. anyone keeping count? ... 135mins on the phone to order a couple of inhalers. every 6 months. (i did try and order a few more, to stock up, but they didn't like that - froze my prescription, and made me come in for another review) so the next time you're waiting on the phone, remember that they're forcing people to phone up. - they clearly want a long phone queue. maybe in the hope it'll put people off - reducing overall demand. i dare say this probably works...

we've more or less closed down all of the ... conventional (?) routes/methods.

fantastic, just reading those names made my stomach rumble! i've not really got much of an idea of what to expect from 'Homeland' or 'Baity', but i intend to correct that as soon as possible!

to be fair, this isn't a terrible idea. something in excess of 25% of UK farmland is used for occasional sheep grazing. (ie. it's grass) we don't really eat much lamb, we don't really wear much wool, those breeds that tolerate our climate really aren't very productive, sheep farming is incredibly hard work, =Sheep farmers lose money on every sheep. They only survive due to subsidies. Why on earth should we continue paying farmers to maintain massively high numbers of largely unwanted sheep? - especially considering the huge cost of endlessly building more and more flood defences for cities and towns downstream that have to deal with flooding that results from our uplands over-grazed inability to hold back water? if we're going to pay farmers to do something, why not include tree planting ? - it'll reduce flooding, increase habitat for wildlife, etc. it's one of those ideas that pays for itself, without any real drawbacks. we're getting dangerously close to potential *actual* benefit of leaving the EU - we don't have to negotiate with 27 other countries when we want to change an out-dated, and damaging, system of farming subsidies.