What annoyed you (in the news) today?

Diane Abbott (I meant).

On the Angela Rayner thing I'm not sure I really understand the issue...whether it's who she sold to (restrictions within 10y of purchase), CGT (sold when the PPR extension had reduced from 36m to 18m IIRC but very little, if anything, at stake there), false declarations to HMRC and electoral roll, or the raw irony of her embracing and profiting from Thatcher's flagship policy which privatised state assets at the expense of the poor. 

Just my humble opinion: a policy of Right To Buy accommodation (which has been specifically set aside for the most financially vulnerable in society and not replenished) at a market discount then sell at market rate in the future is nuts. Gaining access to state subsidised housing on eligibility criteria that's not reassessed when it no longer applicable is also nuts. There is a massive shortage of state accommodation for people who are genuinely in need today - a large part of that is attributable to lack of stock replenishment after Right to Buy (under multiple governments). Even many dual-income professionals can't afford to buy a property; it's by no means universally accessible or an automatic right. But the vulnerable in genuine need should be able to rely on a state-based safety net of accommodation until they no longer need it. And they simply can't. Not just a Tory thing either; this has been going on for decades...and anyone milking this to the tune of £50K whilst positioning themselves as champion of the vulnerable smacks of champagne socialism at its finest. 

It's like there are 3 subclasses of these 'honourable' people:
1) the ones who obtained their honour through questionable means;
2) the ones who obtained their honour legitimately then used that status as a smokescreen for exploitation;
3) the ones that obtained their honour legitimately and no further story.
If I had to put % against each of those I don't think it would look great. Also, tricky to do given the overlap between a) and b) 

that is a model which has decades of being proven for electricity and gas. The network of pipes that deliver gas to your door are not owned by the company that you contract with to supply your gas. You don't get new pipes when you change supplier. Likewise your electricity and the grid. It's the regulation framework that provides the incentive - both carrot and stick - to maintain and improve the delivery infrastructure. 

In fact you don't even get new original source generation when you switch, not directly anyway. What you get is a new billing agent, and you effect a microscopic change in the balance of bidding and purchasing for gas/electric supply from the generators by the utility companies, and how that is contracted. 

A model of separation of infrastructure from contracted supplier also worked for a long time with telephony and internet as well: in that case with a (privatised) BT being required to grant access to its network to its (private) competitors, at rates agreed by the regulator. 

The fact that the power utility privatisation model was not followed for water makes me think there are intrinsic reasons why that separation is or considered to be less effective/workable in the water industry. Or someone got a bit lazy

EDIT: 95% written but not posted before iRobot posted some similar comments. 

I also find an issue with many, and I could show you some in my area where you have a single pensioner still living in a 3 or 4 bed council house and refusing to move, but this was always the case.
The Woman who lived next to my parents had a 4 bed, 2 bathroom house and lived alone, we were 5 and living in a 3 bedroomed 1 bathroom house, but the council couldn't get her to move even when they offered to fit carpets of her choice and decorate it for her if she would move to a 2 bed house or a bungalow.

there is a block of Council Flats down from me, last year the council fitted solar panels, the residents now get free electric when the system is generating, but they have asked for a rent reduction as they found out the council made £3,000 on export last year. the 2 bed flats are £450 a month currently and that includes heating as the council put in a big heat pump.
for me that's greedy the council paid for the system they are giving free electric when it's available and a system with 60 odd panels wouldn't be cheap

There is also the question of where she was register to vote & if that was at her main residence which may be a breach of electoral law and added to that now is whether a single person reduction in council tax was claimed when her brother was lodging there when it was her main residence. Its quite a tangled mess.

I thought she had her elevated position in the party by virtue of Trade Union support. Can't see them being happy if their poster girl gets the boot.

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/motorist-who-ignored-severn-bridge-28912269

what a selfish moron putting the lives of other at risk presumably because he waned to save 10 minutes driving to the other bridge, as per the comments I hope his insurance refuse to pay