this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2026

110 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

7,047 readers

3,003 active

399 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 3 years ago

moderators

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

Burnham to scrap Starmer’s digital ID scheme in ‘reset of priorities’ (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 months ago by thehatfox@lemmy.world to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] BigTwerp@feddit.uk 10 points 3 months ago (8 children)

More good news from no.10

Here's an alternative article without a paywall: BBC News - Burnham to scrap digital ID to focus on 'helping with cost of living' - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y08z25q8eo

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 3 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Shame it was coupled with a statement agreeing to drill north sea oil and gas.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] BigTwerp@feddit.uk -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

The poorest people in our country are disproportionately affected by the natural gas supply crisis, the cause of which sits in the Kremlin.

Here's a lesson for anyone interested: there are only a few areas in the world that produce natural gas that can be used in our gas supply system with domestic refineries and distribution. There are sources further afield but without connection to a pipeline they are cost prohibitive. A commodity is only as valuable as your ability to deliver it.

Areas of natural gas readily accessible in Europe are the north sea, Baltic states and Russia. So whilst it is a "global market" in theory, the reality is price of natural gas for UK is effectively dominated by European continental availability.

Europe as a whole doesn't have enough gas without buying it from Russia, which is currently not sensible because Russia is using that money to fund a war against Europe. That is why the price is high.

Increasing UK supply of natural gas will offset energy costs ultimately reducing the cost for poorest people in the country.

Even the most optimistic estimates for creating a fully carbon neutral energy grid are 20 years away, that's best case scenario but the green party are working with reform to object to the infrastructure that is needed to make that happen.

Explain to me how helping poor people is bad?

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I really don't want this to come off as rude but you do not know what you're talking about.

When they drill for oil and natural gas in the North sea it doesn't go into some special "only for the UK" reserve, it's private companies doing the drilling so they will sell on the global market. So more drilling of natural gas in the North sea will do diddly squat for the prices in the UK.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] BigTwerp@feddit.uk 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

I fully understand that there is no "UK reserve" it's basically my job to understand this. I have to simplify things for a shorter post, though.

Here's a lesson for anyone interested: there are only a few areas in the world that produce natural gas that can be used in our gas supply system with domestic refineries and distribution. There are sources further afield but without connection to a pipeline they are cost prohibitive. A commodity is only as valuable as your ability to deliver it.

Areas of natural gas readily accessible in Europe are the north sea, Baltic states and Russia. So whilst it is a "global market" in theory, the reality is price of natural gas for UK is effectively dominated by European continental availability.

Europe as a whole doesn't have enough gas without buying it from Russia, which is currently not sensible because Russia is using that money to fund a war against Europe. That is why the price is high.

If Europe, including UK are able to release more natural gas it will reduce the overall cost of gas a little bit (maybe a lot depending on other countries contribution and effectiveness of reducing gas usage) and also reduce the amount of money that goes to Russia.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

If it's your job then you know the gas supplies aren't limited because we aren't extracting enough gas. The limited because they've been sold to other markets hence my original comment of more gas extraction will not necessarily equal more gas for the UK and therefore lower prices.

Additionally it would take 5 to 6 years minimum to build out a drilling operation so it's hardly a solution for today or even 2029. Wouldn't the more sensible option be to build out more renewables such as solar which can be stood up in a lot less time than half a decade?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] BigTwerp@feddit.uk 1 point 3 months ago

God forbid that a government would actually plan for the future.

parent

[–] toebert@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

There are other means to help this exact issue than just increasing supply.

They could instead re-introduce the government programs (ECO) to insulate homes better - which is just ending - to reduce demand. Pumping heat into a home that has a draft going through it is still just burning money.

Increasing supply instead just fuels speeding up global warming which is contributing to higher energy usage due to requiring more heating/cooling. The same people will be equally affected by those issues, and that's before even talking about the environmental impact and risks of the actual drilling.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] BigTwerp@feddit.uk 1 point 3 months ago

Did you know that the same people eligible for free insulation are also eligible for free heat pumps, and that scheme is still running?

I agree we need to insulate more however: The insulation scheme is ending because despite a lot of work trying to get people to insulate their homes less than half of eligible homes actually did it and new applications dried up. In the end they were spending more on publicity than insulation.

Or in other words; without forcing people to do it against their will everything that can be done with that particular scheme has been done.

A bigger issue now is people in rented accommodation, particularly pre-war housing stock where landlords haven't insulated the property properly and that wasn't captured in the insulation scheme anyway. There is in theory minimum EPC standards for rented accommodation but the reality is a lot of properties don't meet that standard.

parent

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 11 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Great, now he should fire Shabana Mahmoud, dump the Palestine Action ban, and exonerate all the people who have been find and imprisoned for exercising their rights.

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] FarrellPerks@feddit.uk 1 point 3 months ago

Burnham is a big fan of Israel, so that's pretty unlikely.

parent

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Misleading: that's not the digital ID scheme that everyone hates. That one is still in.

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] davetortoise@reddthat.com 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

What do you mean?

parent

[–] WilkoWandered@feddit.uk 2 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

I don't have any huge feelings about digital ID but what I do feel frustrated by is the people want a solution to a problem. The govermwnt trys the answer that, then waters it down, then cancels it.

This is the perfect example of it with the original view to make illegal work harder. We will never achieve anything with such short term views and priorities. Just bloody see something to the end! And then decide if it achieved its goal!

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

Well what happened here was;
Everyone wanted a solution to the problem.
Experts told the government what the solution to the problem was.
The government did something completely different than nobody liked.
Everyone complained.
The government scraps the entire thing.
Everyone still wants a solution to the problem.

There seems to be this inability from the government both Labour and Conservative to just do a thing for the purposes of resolving a particular issue. Instead they always seem to try and make it into this one size fits nothing solution that will fail to tackle multiple issues including the original issue.

It's like this social media ban for under 16s. That's a good policy and I support it, but they're implementation of it is insanely stupid, will cost loads of money, won't work, and will violate the privacy of a bunch of adults. Instead of doing what the experts told them to do which was to mandate a law that required operating systems to have parental controls.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] WilkoWandered@feddit.uk 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

Fair enough you make a good point. It is more about poor implementation.

I think my complaint was more about just general inability to see things to the end, a prime minister term in fact.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 3 months ago

Well in defence to Starmer he basically faced a coup d'etat, it would have been more irresponsible of him to fight it than to have done what he's done and stepped aside. Of course it would have been better if you'd been less useless to begin with but perhaps that's beyond his personal capabilities.

parent

6 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.ml view that post

[–] ratel@mander.xyz 69 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Next scrap those Palantir contracts.

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 39 points 3 months ago (3 children)

And get rid of the online ID checks too

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 26 points 3 months ago (1 child)

And scrap the met police roll out of fixed position facial recognition cameras across London

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 14 points 3 months ago

Rip the cameras down

parent

[+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] FoxAlive@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 months ago*

Your hearts in the right place, but you give them a inch and they'll take a mile.

You have to have an absolute stance on things when you make statements online just to match our discontent so the message is clear.

They're going to be trying to weasle in regardless, so it's not productive to assist them in any form. You just have to say a hard no regardless.

Also any messaging thats longer than a sentence and provides context goes straight in one ear and out the other. Make it simple stupid and make it repeatable.

parent

load more comments (-1 replies)