Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Thistle do nicely for Starmer – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,783
    edited March 2023
    sarissa said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.

    I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership

    It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
    She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
    Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points

    Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.

    Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.

    Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.

    Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
    That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.

    Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
    This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:

    1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term)
    2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards
    3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference

    Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
    1) won’t happen - there is more than enough offshore wind potential for both countries. The U.K. build out is largely constrained by building the turbines and installing them.

    Piping drinking water any distance is very expensive. Desalination would be cheaper.
    Or just take it from Wales:
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/18/very-sensitive-subject-plan-to-take-welsh-water-for-london-stirs-painful-memories
    All you need to do is to pump the Severn up a littl einto the old Thames to Severn canal route. @Malmesbury was talking about that a year or two back on PB.

    But that assumes WAles - and nearer cities - don't need the water first in the prevailing climate. Edit: it's sensitive enough already as things are.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452
    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.

    I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership

    It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
    She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
    Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points

    Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.

    Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.

    Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.

    Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
    That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.

    Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
    This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:

    1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term)
    2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards
    3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference

    Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
    1) won’t happen - there is more than enough offshore wind potential for both countries. The U.K. build out is largely constrained by building the turbines and installing them.

    Piping drinking water any distance is very expensive. Desalination would be cheaper.
    Or just take it from Wales:
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/18/very-sensitive-subject-plan-to-take-welsh-water-for-london-stirs-painful-memories
    All you need to do is to pump the Severn up a littl einto the old Thames to Severn canal route. @Malmesbury was talking about that a year or two back on PB.

    But that assumes WAles - and nearer cities - don't need the water first in the prevailing climate. Edit: it's sensitive enough already as things are.
    Reservoirs are much, much cheaper. The religious thing against allowing expansion/small new ones is bizarre.

    The UK rainfall is more than high enough, even if it drops by 2/3rds...
  • Options
    Mitrovic deserves a 10 match ban.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452
    edited March 2023
    Sandpit said:

    Off-topic:

    Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.

    Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.

    Old Warden is a wonderful place to spend a day, the most fantastic collection of old planes, most of which are maintained in working order.

    https://www.shuttleworth.org/
    The village of Old Warden is a delight - well worth a stay at the local B&B with the Shuttleworth round the corner (walking distance) and the pub...

    The contrast with the centre of Bedford is extreme. If you are liable to depression don't look at Bedford.....
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,113
    pigeon said:

    UBS/Credit Suisse deal done.

    Lloyds/HBOS Mk2. How long will it be before UBS needs a bailout?
    We'll see. Perhaps lessons have been learned.....

    A certain amount of crowing that our banks are in much better condition than those in other countries but it remains the case that our economy is very financial services dependent. Any financial crisis is likely to harm us significantly, no?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452
    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,445

    UBS/Credit Suisse deal done.

    Who is the next domino to fall?
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,591
    SSI2 is right that there were Republican party machines, as well as Democratic machines, though rather fewer Republican machines, as the 20th century went on. D. W. Brogan has insightful things to say about them in his "American Political Sytem".

    For those who want more on the machines, I would suggest starting with "Plunkitt of Tamany Hall", Mike Royko's "Boss", a biography of the first (and most importan) Mayor Daley, and, of course, my favorite American political novel, "The Last Hurrah", based on Boston's "rascal king", James Michael Curley.

    (Fun facts: Tammany Hall has a monument on the Gettysburg battlefield, a wigwam, since they were named after an Indian chief.

    Black votes were crucial to Daley's success. Michelle Obama's father was a small cog in the Daley machine, by the way.

    Near the end of "The Last Hurrah", "Footsie", so nicknamed for his ability to get from one precinct to another quickly, describes some of his successes at personation and a failure, when he claimed to be a Presbyerian minister.)
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,335

    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.

    I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership

    It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
    She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
    Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points

    Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.

    Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.

    Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.

    Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
    That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.

    Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
    This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:

    1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term)
    2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards
    3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference

    Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
    1) won’t happen - there is more than enough offshore wind potential for both countries. The U.K. build out is largely constrained by building the turbines and installing them.

    Piping drinking water any distance is very expensive. Desalination would be cheaper.
    Or just take it from Wales:
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/18/very-sensitive-subject-plan-to-take-welsh-water-for-london-stirs-painful-memories
    All you need to do is to pump the Severn up a littl einto the old Thames to Severn canal route. @Malmesbury was talking about that a year or two back on PB.

    But that assumes WAles - and nearer cities - don't need the water first in the prevailing climate. Edit: it's sensitive enough already as things are.
    Reservoirs are much, much cheaper. The religious thing against allowing expansion/small new ones is bizarre.

    The UK rainfall is more than high enough, even if it drops by 2/3rds...
    The kind of people who scream if you put a solar panel within ten miles of their house certainly aren't going to tolerate having tracts of countryside drowned underwater. You have to fight tooth-and-nail to get anything built in this country.

    Things might get a little easier when we have a change of Government, and a lot of these kinds of developments will then be getting proposed for areas represented by Opposition MPs. It rather depends on the extent to which Labour is prepared to upset legions of grumpy elderly homeowners, where the Tories clearly aren't.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,977

    UBS/Credit Suisse deal done.

    Who is the next domino to fall?
    Deutsch Bank ?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,206
    edited March 2023

    UBS/Credit Suisse deal done.

    Who is the next domino to fall?
    Depending on what the New York County District Attorney releases says on Tuesday about indicting Trump I'm going to go for Deutsche Bank.

    Totally unrelated DB were Trump's bankers of choice.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,822

    Mitrovic deserves a 10 match ban.

    Yes indeed. Mitrovic lost it and the ref had no alternative.

    What seems to be being forgotten in the 'poor hard done by Fulham' meme is that if Willian hadn't handled the ball it would have been 1-1 anyway; he stopped a certain goal.
  • Options

    Mitrovic deserves a 10 match ban.

    Yes indeed. Mitrovic lost it and the ref had no alternative.

    What seems to be being forgotten in the 'poor hard done by Fulham' meme is that if Willian hadn't handled the ball it would have been 1-1 anyway; he stopped a certain goal.
    3 red cards for one team from one incident is quite something.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,822
    edited March 2023
    Taz said:

    UBS/Credit Suisse deal done.

    Who is the next domino to fall?
    Deutsch Bank ?
    Good grief, you and TSE?

    DB = doomed bank.
  • Options
    Here we go.

    It shouldn't be LloydsTSB/HBOS all over again.

    Troubled bank Credit Suisse has been rescued by its Swiss rival UBS in a government-backed deal.

    Sunday evening's announcement came after a weekend of emergency talks in Switzerland between the two banks and the country's financial regulators.

    The Swiss National Bank said the deal was the best way to restore the confidence of financial markets and to manage risks to the economy.

    Both banks will be given a liquidity assistance loan of up to $110bn.

    The federal government said in order to reduce any risks for UBS it would grant a guarantee against potential losses worth $9.6bn (£7.9bn).


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65007871
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 879

    UBS/Credit Suisse deal done.

    Who is the next domino to fall?
    I reckon we switch back to a regional US bank to fail next. Maybe First Republic Bank.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452

    pigeon said:

    UBS/Credit Suisse deal done.

    Lloyds/HBOS Mk2. How long will it be before UBS needs a bailout?
    We'll see. Perhaps lessons have been learned.....

    A certain amount of crowing that our banks are in much better condition than those in other countries but it remains the case that our economy is very financial services dependent. Any financial crisis is likely to harm us significantly, no?
    The other, sensible feature of UK regulation is that a foreign bank has to setup a separate entity here, once it reaches a fairly tiny size - £100m of UK deposits.

    Which means that it is far harder to accidentally import someone else's comedy.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,620

    FPT: I doubt that I have persuaded many of you, but I will repeat my belief that Trump is not certain to win the Republican nomination, and that his status, if anything, has been eroding within the party.

    You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.

    (I have no idea what the odds on him winning the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.

    Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)

    Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)

    The Republican Primary is an extremely difficult election to call.

    I tend to think that Trump has a hold over about a third of the US Republican Party - as in, they see him as their man and he can do no wrong, etc. There's another 20-30% that are Trump-ist in leanings, and who are strong supporters of the President, but who would be quite open to voting for another candidate, if they were to find one with a similar mindset and a better chance of winning.

    That's about 55-60% of the Republican Party.

    There's another 10-15% who will are mostly anti-Democrat, who supported Trump (as he was anti-Democrat), but who would definitely prefer someone else next time around.

    And then there is 25-30% who are committed Republicans, but who are disgusted by the corruption and venality of Trump.

    The issue for the Republicans is that they have (mostly) a winner takes all Primary system. This means that if there 4-5 candidates, then Trump can win in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc., with 30-35% of the vote. And if Trump wins the first few contests, then he will be mighty hard to stop from winning the contest.

    FWIW, I think a DeSantis v Trump head-to-head would be won by DeSantis, who would in turn beat Biden or Harris. I'm not a great DeSantis fan, but I think the latest Florida Gubernatorial election shows there's a lot of appetite for Trumpism delivered by someone who is not Trump. Of course, there is an important caveat here. If Trump is still arguing he won the Republican nomination and is not supporting DeSantis, then I think it could all look very different.

    I don't really see a path for a non-Trump, no-DeSantis candidate. I mean, it's possible someone with charisma and the Evangelical vote could do it, but the former requirement knocks out Pence. And I don't see many other hats in the ring.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,591
    On primaries in the US: There are different types of primaries in the US. In general, I favor "semi-closed" primaries which are open to registered party members -- and independents, but not to members of the other party.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election

    (Washington state now uses "top two" primaries. I have seen arguments that they would produce more moderate candidates at general elections, but have not seen a formal investigation of that argument.

    And they sometimes produce "interesting" results. A few years ago, the Republicans ran two candidates for state treasurer, the Democrats at least three. The two Republicans won the primary, and one of them was elected state treasurer, even though there were more votes for the Democratic candidates in the primary.)
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452
    pigeon said:

    Carnyx said:

    sarissa said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.

    I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership

    It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
    She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
    Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points

    Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.

    Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.

    Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.

    Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
    That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.

    Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
    This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:

    1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term)
    2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards
    3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference

    Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
    1) won’t happen - there is more than enough offshore wind potential for both countries. The U.K. build out is largely constrained by building the turbines and installing them.

    Piping drinking water any distance is very expensive. Desalination would be cheaper.
    Or just take it from Wales:
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/18/very-sensitive-subject-plan-to-take-welsh-water-for-london-stirs-painful-memories
    All you need to do is to pump the Severn up a littl einto the old Thames to Severn canal route. @Malmesbury was talking about that a year or two back on PB.

    But that assumes WAles - and nearer cities - don't need the water first in the prevailing climate. Edit: it's sensitive enough already as things are.
    Reservoirs are much, much cheaper. The religious thing against allowing expansion/small new ones is bizarre.

    The UK rainfall is more than high enough, even if it drops by 2/3rds...
    The kind of people who scream if you put a solar panel within ten miles of their house certainly aren't going to tolerate having tracts of countryside drowned underwater. You have to fight tooth-and-nail to get anything built in this country.

    Things might get a little easier when we have a change of Government, and a lot of these kinds of developments will then be getting proposed for areas represented by Opposition MPs. It rather depends on the extent to which Labour is prepared to upset legions of grumpy elderly homeowners, where the Tories clearly aren't.
    The problem is that many people are so used to shit development, that they assume all development is shit. The only answer is stop the shit development.

    There are many many reservoirs that can be extended a bit, which will actually have a barely noticeable effect.
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,054
    edited March 2023

    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


    4m x 4m sounds like a lot when you've got 75 million people.

    That's 1200 sq km, or well over 100 Rutland Waters.
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,335

    pigeon said:

    UBS/Credit Suisse deal done.

    Lloyds/HBOS Mk2. How long will it be before UBS needs a bailout?
    We'll see. Perhaps lessons have been learned.....

    A certain amount of crowing that our banks are in much better condition than those in other countries but it remains the case that our economy is very financial services dependent. Any financial crisis is likely to harm us significantly, no?
    The other, sensible feature of UK regulation is that a foreign bank has to setup a separate entity here, once it reaches a fairly tiny size - £100m of UK deposits.

    Which means that it is far harder to accidentally import someone else's comedy.
    Hence the fact that the UK arm of Silicon Valley Bank, which was doing perfectly well, was so easy to hive off from the parent and save.

    Here we go.

    It shouldn't be LloydsTSB/HBOS all over again.

    Troubled bank Credit Suisse has been rescued by its Swiss rival UBS in a government-backed deal.

    Sunday evening's announcement came after a weekend of emergency talks in Switzerland between the two banks and the country's financial regulators.

    The Swiss National Bank said the deal was the best way to restore the confidence of financial markets and to manage risks to the economy.

    Both banks will be given a liquidity assistance loan of up to $110bn.

    The federal government said in order to reduce any risks for UBS it would grant a guarantee against potential losses worth $9.6bn (£7.9bn).


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65007871

    We shall see. Lloyds Banking Group obviously wasn't meant to be a car crash, but it happened anyway. Lord alone knows what nasty surprises are concealed within Credit Suisse, or how much pressure the Swiss federal authorities applied to UBS to make it do as they wanted.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,591
    rcs1000 said: "The issue for the Republicans is that they have (mostly) a winner takes all Primary system. This means that if there 4-5 candidates, then Trump can win in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc., with 30-35% of the vote. And if Trump wins the first few contests, then he will be mighty hard to stop from winning the contest."

    He is right about the winner-take-all problem. (In 2016, I speculated that -- had the two parties exchanged their rules -- Clinton would have sewed up the Democratic nomination much sooner -- and the Republicans would have chosen their nominee at their convention, possibly a compromise candidate who was able to draw support from the other non-Trump candidate. (In 1860, Lincoln waon the nomination in just that way.)
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452

    Taz said:

    UBS/Credit Suisse deal done.

    Who is the next domino to fall?
    Deutsch Bank ?
    Good grief, you and TSE?

    DB = doomed bank.
    Douche Bank.

    Please get it right. Here is The List

    DB = Douche Bank
    JPM = J P Moron
    Morgan Stanley = Moron Stanley
    CITI Group = Shitty Group
    BarCap* = BarCrap
    Credit Suisse = Debit Suisse
    UBS = United Bank of Shit
    RBS = Royal Bank of Shit
    TSB = Totally Shit Bank
    NatWest = ShatWest
    HSBC = Honkers Shitty Bank of Crap (I know, needs work)
    Goldmans Sachs = Gold-digging Suckers

    * Yes, I know
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,253
    edited March 2023

    Taz said:

    UBS/Credit Suisse deal done.

    Who is the next domino to fall?
    Deutsch Bank ?
    Good grief, you and TSE?

    DB = doomed bank.
    Douche Bank.

    Please get it right. Here is The List

    DB = Douche Bank
    JPM = J P Moron
    Morgan Stanley = Moron Stanley
    CITI Group = Shitty Group
    BarCap* = BarCrap
    Credit Suisse = Debit Suisse
    UBS = United Bank of Shit
    RBS = Royal Bank of Shit
    TSB = Totally Shit Bank
    NatWest = ShatWest
    HSBC = Honkers Shitty Bank of Crap (I know, needs work)
    Goldmans Sachs = Gold-digging Suckers

    * Yes, I know
    HSBC - hos suck, bankers cockup?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,691

    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


    4m x 4m sounds like a lot when you've got 75 million people.

    That's 1200 sq km, or well over 100 Rutland Waters.
    We only need that if not a drop of rain falls in a year, and no one cuts usage!
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,691
    edited March 2023

    pigeon said:

    UBS/Credit Suisse deal done.

    Lloyds/HBOS Mk2. How long will it be before UBS needs a bailout?
    We'll see. Perhaps lessons have been learned.....

    A certain amount of crowing that our banks are in much better condition than those in other countries but it remains the case that our economy is very financial services dependent. Any financial crisis is likely to harm us significantly, no?
    The other, sensible feature of UK regulation is that a foreign bank has to setup a separate entity here, once it reaches a fairly tiny size - £100m of UK deposits.

    Which means that it is far harder to accidentally import someone else's comedy.
    Though the root of the problem is fundamentally the same worldwide. The banks hold assets in the form of bonds that have reduced in value, and are vulnerable to flash bank runs.

  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,182
    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,691

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,182
    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    Well, quite.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,902
    edited March 2023

    rcs1000 said: "The issue for the Republicans is that they have (mostly) a winner takes all Primary system. This means that if there 4-5 candidates, then Trump can win in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc., with 30-35% of the vote. And if Trump wins the first few contests, then he will be mighty hard to stop from winning the contest."

    He is right about the winner-take-all problem. (In 2016, I speculated that -- had the two parties exchanged their rules -- Clinton would have sewed up the Democratic nomination much sooner -- and the Republicans would have chosen their nominee at their convention, possibly a compromise candidate who was able to draw support from the other non-Trump candidate. (In 1860, Lincoln waon the nomination in just that way.)

    That assumes he is able to win Iowa and New Hampshire. Even in 2016 Cruz beat Trump in Iowa for example.

    It only takes say Pence to win evangelical heavy Iowa and DeSantis to win New Hampshire and Trump's campaign is essentially over. Super Tuesday follows soon after so he doesn't even have a chance for a comeback in South Carolina like Biden did in the 2020 Democratic primaries
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452

    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


    4m x 4m sounds like a lot when you've got 75 million people.

    That's 1200 sq km, or well over 100 Rutland Waters.
    it's more like 2m x 2m
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    UBS/Credit Suisse deal done.

    Who is the next domino to fall?
    Deutsch Bank ?
    Good grief, you and TSE?

    DB = doomed bank.
    Douche Bank.

    Please get it right. Here is The List

    DB = Douche Bank
    JPM = J P Moron
    Morgan Stanley = Moron Stanley
    CITI Group = Shitty Group
    BarCap* = BarCrap
    Credit Suisse = Debit Suisse
    UBS = United Bank of Shit
    RBS = Royal Bank of Shit
    TSB = Totally Shit Bank
    NatWest = ShatWest
    HSBC = Honkers Shitty Bank of Crap (I know, needs work)
    Goldmans Sachs = Gold-digging Suckers

    * Yes, I know
    HSBC - hos suck, bankers cockup?
    Needs more Mexican drug cartel in there, I think.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,691

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    Only if they have under £85 000 in that bank.

    Though it does seem that governments are implicitly guaranteeing deposits greater than that.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,620
    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    One of the things the last twenty years has told us is that Glass-Steagall was absolutely right: deposit taking entities and trading entities should be separate.

    The former group should be highly regulated and well capitalized, and in return for this, the State and the Central Bank offer support for depositors in the event of problems. (Not shareholders, note, just depositors.) And this is necessary, because it is perfectly possible during a panic for a well capitalized, fundamentally profitable retail bank to go bust. Simply, you lend long (mortgages and the like) and borrow short (current accounts). If everyone heads to the door at the same time, no bank on earth can survive that.

    For trading entities, well this group can largely do what they like, but the flip side is that if they go bust - as many investment banks over the years have, like Drexel Burnham Lambert, Barings and Lehman Brothers - then they go bust, and the government and the Bank of England let them go to the wall.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 13,078

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The same is true of all large organisations but the problem, both in 2008 and now, is large organisations tend not to have a credible or coherent "insolvency plan" or "liquidation plan", in other words, clear and concise instructions as to what should happen in the event of the business collapsing.

    Right back at the time of Northern Rock, the fear wasn't the loss of Northern Rock itself but that a collapse would cause a run on other banks which would have both economic and public order implications (even RBS for example having to turn off its ATMs or refuse card transactions was seen to be a public order problem).

    The Government or other banks have to be the last resort - the deposit guarantee has to be there. History has shown us the political danger of pauperisation of key economic sectors - if people lose money and jobs they will be drawn to radical politics.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,620

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,902
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    One of the things the last twenty years has told us is that Glass-Steagall was absolutely right: deposit taking entities and trading entities should be separate.

    The former group should be highly regulated and well capitalized, and in return for this, the State and the Central Bank offer support for depositors in the event of problems. (Not shareholders, note, just depositors.) And this is necessary, because it is perfectly possible during a panic for a well capitalized, fundamentally profitable retail bank to go bust. Simply, you lend long (mortgages and the like) and borrow short (current accounts). If everyone heads to the door at the same time, no bank on earth can survive that.

    For trading entities, well this group can largely do what they like, but the flip side is that if they go bust - as many investment banks over the years have, like Drexel Burnham Lambert, Barings and Lehman Brothers - then they go bust, and the government and the Bank of England let them go to the wall.
    Bush of course let Lehmans go to the wall in 2008
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,902
    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    That wasn't true for Lehmans which Bush let go bankrupt.

    It was Gordon Brown who decided to bail out all the British banks, even Osborne suggested he would have let at least Northern Rock go bust with no bailout
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    Only if they have under £85 000 in that bank.

    Though it does seem that governments are implicitly guaranteeing deposits greater than that.
    They have to; to do otherwise would provoke bank runs.
  • Options
    pingping Posts: 3,778
    edited March 2023
    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    Joe Weisenthal (of the excellent Bloomberg oddlots podcast) makes an interesting point on Freddie Gray’s Speccie “Americano” podcast;

    https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/best-of-the-spectator/id793236670

    Why don’t we just all have accounts at the FED/BoE?

    Cut out the middlemen.

    Btw, is anyone suggesting HSBC is shaky? I have some cash in vanguard, who park it at HSBC. Officially it’s FSCS covered, but I’m still a little nervous.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 13,078
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    That wasn't true for Lehmans which Bush let go bankrupt.

    It was Gordon Brown who decided to bail out all the British banks, even Osborne suggested he would have let at least Northern Rock go bust with no bailout
    Would Osborne have brought in the deposit guarantee scheme?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452
    rcs1000 said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
    We'll need to see the deal on Monday. There are some interesting rumours....
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,822
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    One of the things the last twenty years has told us is that Glass-Steagall was absolutely right: deposit taking entities and trading entities should be separate.

    The former group should be highly regulated and well capitalized, and in return for this, the State and the Central Bank offer support for depositors in the event of problems. (Not shareholders, note, just depositors.) And this is necessary, because it is perfectly possible during a panic for a well capitalized, fundamentally profitable retail bank to go bust. Simply, you lend long (mortgages and the like) and borrow short (current accounts). If everyone heads to the door at the same time, no bank on earth can survive that.

    For trading entities, well this group can largely do what they like, but the flip side is that if they go bust - as many investment banks over the years have, like Drexel Burnham Lambert, Barings and Lehman Brothers - then they go bust, and the government and the Bank of England let them go to the wall.
    Bush of course let Lehmans go to the wall in 2008
    Yeah, that worked out well
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,959
    Evening all! A bit late to the pun party earlier, looks like it was all a mis-Hindustanding :lol:
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452
    ping said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    Joe Weisenthal (of the excellent Bloomberg oddlots podcast) makes an interesting point on Freddie Gray’s Speccie “Americano” podcast;

    https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/best-of-the-spectator/id793236670

    Why don’t we just all have accounts at the FED/BoE?

    Cut out the middlemen.

    Btw, is anyone suggesting HSBC is shaky? I have some cash in vanguard, who park it at HSBC. Officially it’s FSCS covered, but I’m still a little nervous.
    If its is under £85K it's pretty much in government bonds. Not heard anything about HSBC being a problem.
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,335
    Driver said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    Only if they have under £85 000 in that bank.

    Though it does seem that governments are implicitly guaranteeing deposits greater than that.
    They have to; to do otherwise would provoke bank runs.
    Yes, the nominal limit is meaningless. It's not just the risk of bank runs - allowing large depositors to be cleared out would randomly destroy large numbers of businesses, as well as people who happen to be in the middle of buying/selling their homes when the game of musical chairs stops.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,791
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    That wasn't true for Lehmans which Bush let go bankrupt.

    It was Gordon Brown who decided to bail out all the British banks, even Osborne suggested he would have let at least Northern Rock go bust with no bailout
    I think history will judge Brown to have made the right call and Bush the wrong one.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,082
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    One of the things the last twenty years has told us is that Glass-Steagall was absolutely right: deposit taking entities and trading entities should be separate.

    The former group should be highly regulated and well capitalized, and in return for this, the State and the Central Bank offer support for depositors in the event of problems. (Not shareholders, note, just depositors.) And this is necessary, because it is perfectly possible during a panic for a well capitalized, fundamentally profitable retail bank to go bust. Simply, you lend long (mortgages and the like) and borrow short (current accounts). If everyone heads to the door at the same time, no bank on earth can survive that.

    For trading entities, well this group can largely do what they like, but the flip side is that if they go bust - as many investment banks over the years have, like Drexel Burnham Lambert, Barings and Lehman Brothers - then they go bust, and the government and the Bank of England let them go to the wall.
    I remember around the time of the GFC listening to a fairly right-wing/semi-libertarian podcast who were outraged that the investment banks (or arms) were being bailed out.

    They were firmly behind the idea of protecting "your average joe" and their deposit account - but the freewheeling 'buy! sell! buy! sell!' people should be left to their fate.

    Quite struck me at the time and has stayed with me.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,902
    edited March 2023
    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    That wasn't true for Lehmans which Bush let go bankrupt.

    It was Gordon Brown who decided to bail out all the British banks, even Osborne suggested he would have let at least Northern Rock go bust with no bailout
    I think history will judge Brown to have made the right call and Bush the wrong one.
    Arguably in terms of reducing the damage yes but nobody who says the point of capitalism includes allow failing businesses, including banks, to go bust has any grounds whatsoever for saying so if they vote Labour and backed what Brown did in 2008.

    Brown is a statist, not a capitalist
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,335
    ping said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    Joe Weisenthal (of the excellent Bloomberg oddlots podcast) makes an interesting point on Freddie Gray’s Speccie “Americano” podcast;

    https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/best-of-the-spectator/id793236670

    Why don’t we just all have accounts at the FED/BoE?

    Cut out the middlemen.
    On that subject, if all you want to do is salt away savings then anyone can open an account with NS&I, which amounts to the same thing.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,822
    ohnotnow said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    One of the things the last twenty years has told us is that Glass-Steagall was absolutely right: deposit taking entities and trading entities should be separate.

    The former group should be highly regulated and well capitalized, and in return for this, the State and the Central Bank offer support for depositors in the event of problems. (Not shareholders, note, just depositors.) And this is necessary, because it is perfectly possible during a panic for a well capitalized, fundamentally profitable retail bank to go bust. Simply, you lend long (mortgages and the like) and borrow short (current accounts). If everyone heads to the door at the same time, no bank on earth can survive that.

    For trading entities, well this group can largely do what they like, but the flip side is that if they go bust - as many investment banks over the years have, like Drexel Burnham Lambert, Barings and Lehman Brothers - then they go bust, and the government and the Bank of England let them go to the wall.
    I remember around the time of the GFC listening to a fairly right-wing/semi-libertarian podcast who were outraged that the investment banks (or arms) were being bailed out.

    They were firmly behind the idea of protecting "your average joe" and their deposit account - but the freewheeling 'buy! sell! buy! sell!' people should be left to their fate.

    Quite struck me at the time and has stayed with me.
    Tricky to pull off though if the bank's been subsidising their trading arm from their deposit arm.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,082
    edited March 2023

    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


    Does that include things like irrigating the food they ate? (Genuinely curious - not snark)
  • Options
    FffsFffs Posts: 46
    rcs1000 said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-19/credit-suisse-s-17-billion-of-risky-bonds-are-now-worthless?srnd=premium-uk
  • Options
    Good evening

    Just catching up on the thread after watching Fulham implode at Old Trafford from a deserved winning position

    Mitrovic totally lost all discipline and must be facing a longer ban than 3 games

    However, I have been listening to Bloomberg who indicate bank account holders have lost all faith in smaller banks since SVB and are transferring billions into the larger banks, threatening the smaller banks liquidity and investments

    If this is the case then surely this is looking like a very serious financial crisis, but then I know and respect posters on this forum who have a better understanding of this and would be interested to hear if this really is as serious as it seems
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,054
    edited March 2023
    Foxy said:

    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


    4m x 4m sounds like a lot when you've got 75 million people.

    That's 1200 sq km, or well over 100 Rutland Waters.
    We only need that if not a drop of rain falls in a year, and no one cuts usage!
    I know, but claiming it as a small amount is a bit naughty.

    We really ought to measure the area required for each person based on rainfall, which is only a little over 0.5m in much of the East. If you take into account evapotranspiration you are left with an excess of barely more than 50mm.

    So here in the Flatlands your 160m3 ends up requiring a catchment of 60m x 60m.
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,335
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    That wasn't true for Lehmans which Bush let go bankrupt.

    It was Gordon Brown who decided to bail out all the British banks, even Osborne suggested he would have let at least Northern Rock go bust with no bailout
    I think history will judge Brown to have made the right call and Bush the wrong one.
    Arguably in terms of reducing the damage yes but nobody who says the point of capitalism includes allow failing businesses, including banks, to go bust has any grounds whatsoever for saying so if they vote Labour and backed what Brown did in 2008.

    Brown is a statist, not a capitalist
    Are you suggesting that, if the current Government had to deal with a similar situation, they ought to go with capitalist principles and let the bank fold, taking down the depositors as well as the shareholders? That's brave. Most of the money in your typical retail bank isn't going to be in the accounts of people earning the minimum wage, subsisting on benefits or tied to zero hours contracts. It'd be your core vote - the rich, the old, businesspeople - that you'd be randomly selecting for total ruination.

    But yeah, riding to the rescue would be statist. So fuck em.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,620
    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-19/credit-suisse-s-17-billion-of-risky-bonds-are-now-worthless?srnd=premium-uk
    They are CoCos, not bonds.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,822

    Foxy said:

    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


    4m x 4m sounds like a lot when you've got 75 million people.

    That's 1200 sq km, or well over 100 Rutland Waters.
    We only need that if not a drop of rain falls in a year, and no one cuts usage!
    I know, but claiming it as a small amount is a bit naughty.

    We really ought to measure the area required for each person based on rainfall, which is only a little over 0.5m in much of the East. If you take into account evapotranspiration you are left with an excess of barely more than 50mm.

    So here in the Flatlands your 160m3 ends up requiring a catchment of 60m x 60m.
    But translating 500mm to 50mm is a bit naughty too. Plus the reservoir area is only a small proportion of the catchment area of course.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452

    Foxy said:

    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


    4m x 4m sounds like a lot when you've got 75 million people.

    That's 1200 sq km, or well over 100 Rutland Waters.
    We only need that if not a drop of rain falls in a year, and no one cuts usage!
    I know, but claiming it as a small amount is a bit naughty.

    We really ought to measure the area required for each person based on rainfall, which is only a little over 0.5m in much of the East. If you take into account evapotranspiration you are left with an excess of barely more than 50mm.

    So here in the Flatlands your 160m3 ends up requiring a catchment of 60m x 60m.
    The catchment area isn't the problem. It is that there isn't the reservoir capacity to store the excess water that exists. So as to time shift it to the drier bits of the year.
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,335

    Good evening

    Just catching up on the thread after watching Fulham implode at Old Trafford from a deserved winning position

    Mitrovic totally lost all discipline and must be facing a longer ban than 3 games

    However, I have been listening to Bloomberg who indicate bank account holders have lost all faith in smaller banks since SVB and are transferring billions into the larger banks, threatening the smaller banks liquidity and investments

    If this is the case then surely this is looking like a very serious financial crisis, but then I know and respect posters on this forum who have a better understanding of this and would be interested to hear if this really is as serious as it seems

    An issue for Yank regional banks, which will probably end with Yank national banks buying out the regional banks, or at least picking up very large shareholdings in them on the cheap.

    I'd assume this just ends with most money being held in a small number of immensely large, systemically critical institutions that then get regulated to death to try to avoid their ever needing to be bailed. Boring institutions that make their shareholders a modest but effectively guaranteed return. But what do I know?
  • Options
    FffsFffs Posts: 46
    rcs1000 said:

    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-19/credit-suisse-s-17-billion-of-risky-bonds-are-now-worthless?srnd=premium-uk
    They are CoCos, not bonds.
    CoCo is short for "contingent convertible _bond_" no? But fair enough, they're not what most people think of as a bond.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,691

    Foxy said:

    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


    4m x 4m sounds like a lot when you've got 75 million people.

    That's 1200 sq km, or well over 100 Rutland Waters.
    We only need that if not a drop of rain falls in a year, and no one cuts usage!
    I know, but claiming it as a small amount is a bit naughty.

    We really ought to measure the area required for each person based on rainfall, which is only a little over 0.5m in much of the East. If you take into account evapotranspiration you are left with an excess of barely more than 50mm.

    So here in the Flatlands your 160m3 ends up requiring a catchment of 60m x 60m.
    The catchment area isn't the problem. It is that there isn't the reservoir capacity to store the excess water that exists. So as to time shift it to the drier bits of the year.
    Though if the Water companies fixed their pipes then we wouldn't need to flood many more valleys.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,902
    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    That wasn't true for Lehmans which Bush let go bankrupt.

    It was Gordon Brown who decided to bail out all the British banks, even Osborne suggested he would have let at least Northern Rock go bust with no bailout
    I think history will judge Brown to have made the right call and Bush the wrong one.
    Arguably in terms of reducing the damage yes but nobody who says the point of capitalism includes allow failing businesses, including banks, to go bust has any grounds whatsoever for saying so if they vote Labour and backed what Brown did in 2008.

    Brown is a statist, not a capitalist
    Are you suggesting that, if the current Government had to deal with a similar situation, they ought to go with capitalist principles and let the bank fold, taking down the depositors as well as the shareholders? That's brave. Most of the money in your typical retail bank isn't going to be in the accounts of people earning the minimum wage, subsisting on benefits or tied to zero hours contracts. It'd be your core vote - the rich, the old, businesspeople - that you'd be randomly selecting for total ruination.

    But yeah, riding to the rescue would be statist. So fuck em.
    Based on Gallowgate's statement 'what is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?' then yes.

    I didn't make that statement, he did. Yet I believe he votes Labour despite Brown bailing out all the banks (which indeed probably protected more savings of those on above average wealth, at least in absolute terms).
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,108

    On primaries in the US: There are different types of primaries in the US. In general, I favor "semi-closed" primaries which are open to registered party members -- and independents, but not to members of the other party.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election

    (Washington state now uses "top two" primaries. I have seen arguments that they would produce more moderate candidates at general elections, but have not seen a formal investigation of that argument.

    And they sometimes produce "interesting" results. A few years ago, the Republicans ran two candidates for state treasurer, the Democrats at least three. The two Republicans won the primary, and one of them was elected state treasurer, even though there were more votes for the Democratic candidates in the primary.)

    The old Washington State "blanket" primary was best. Voters who took primary ballot, could vote for their favorite candidate for each office, regardless of party, with the Democrat receiving the most votes being the Democratic nominee in the general election, and the top GOP vote-getter the Republican nominee. PLUS any independent or third-party candidate also made the general election ballot IF they got 1% of the primary vote, which happened occasionally but not often.

    Under the Top-Two WA primary, the small fry can NOT make the general election ballot, by definition. And in many districts, either Republicans or Democrats have zero candidate on it either.

    Arguments you heard in favor of alleged moderating effect of Top Two, were propagated vigorously by WA Secretary of State's office under Sam Reed, a Republican (and generally good guy).

    This was AFTER the previous SOS, also a GOPer (and ditto) convinced the State of California to adopt the Blanket Primary, which led directly to the federal case, which in turn led to SCOTUS declaring it 9in their unwisdom) unconstitutional.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,620

    rcs1000 said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
    We'll need to see the deal on Monday. There are some interesting rumours....
    As I read it, UBS is offering $0.50 of its own shares for each Credit Suisse share. That's an acquisition, and no entities are being dissolved. Now there are going to be some interesting questions about how CoCos are treated: technically, they should be converted to equity prior to acquisition (which means, BTW, that CoCo holders will end up owning 95% of the bank, but that's another story).

    But the various operating entities of CS will continue to exist. Just because TopCo has changed, does not alter their liabilities or their requirement to repay debts.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


    4m x 4m sounds like a lot when you've got 75 million people.

    That's 1200 sq km, or well over 100 Rutland Waters.
    We only need that if not a drop of rain falls in a year, and no one cuts usage!
    I know, but claiming it as a small amount is a bit naughty.

    We really ought to measure the area required for each person based on rainfall, which is only a little over 0.5m in much of the East. If you take into account evapotranspiration you are left with an excess of barely more than 50mm.

    So here in the Flatlands your 160m3 ends up requiring a catchment of 60m x 60m.
    The catchment area isn't the problem. It is that there isn't the reservoir capacity to store the excess water that exists. So as to time shift it to the drier bits of the year.
    Though if the Water companies fixed their pipes then we wouldn't need to flood many more valleys.
    We are still behind on reservoir capacity, even if the 20% loss was reduced to 5%.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,620
    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-19/credit-suisse-s-17-billion-of-risky-bonds-are-now-worthless?srnd=premium-uk
    They are CoCos, not bonds.
    CoCo is short for "contingent convertible _bond_" no? But fair enough, they're not what most people think of as a bond.
    Technically, before any bank goes bust, CoCos convert to equity. And I think you can make the case that Credit Suisse is insolvent and therefore needs to convert the CoCos now. This would mean that equity holders would be essentially wiped out and the CoCo owners would share the $2bn in UBS equity that is being shared out.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,108
    rcs1000 said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
    "won't lose a penny"

    BUT what about centimes? (OR don't the Swiss give a rap?)
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,218
    Foxy said:

    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


    4m x 4m sounds like a lot when you've got 75 million people.

    That's 1200 sq km, or well over 100 Rutland Waters.
    We only need that if not a drop of rain falls in a year, and no one cuts usage!
    Well, no, if not a drop of rain fell for a year you'd need a lot more than that, because some of the water in the reservoir at the start of the year would evaporate during the year. I've no idea what the scale is of evaporation losses from reservoirs, but they're going to be higher at precisely those times when you most need the water stored in reservoirs (when it's sunny and no rain is falling).

    This makes calculating what reservoir capacity you need to get through a drought scenario a bit more complicated than simply working out the volume of everyone's water usage.

    Given the value of land in the UK I can understand the reluctance to build more reservoirs. They'd surely end up being ridiculously expensive just because of the value of the land being inundated. But if you're not going to build more reservoirs then you need to get serious about incorporating smart design in new buildings to collect and conserve water, so that the demand for water from reservoirs is reduced. Simply doing nothing and then telling people not to flush their toilets doesn't really cut it as a water strategy.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,022
    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    To privatise the profits and nationalise the losses.
    That wasn't true for Lehmans which Bush let go bankrupt.

    It was Gordon Brown who decided to bail out all the British banks, even Osborne suggested he would have let at least Northern Rock go bust with no bailout
    I think history will judge Brown to have made the right call and Bush the wrong one.
    Arguably in terms of reducing the damage yes but nobody who says the point of capitalism includes allow failing businesses, including banks, to go bust has any grounds whatsoever for saying so if they vote Labour and backed what Brown did in 2008.

    Brown is a statist, not a capitalist
    Are you suggesting that, if the current Government had to deal with a similar situation, they ought to go with capitalist principles and let the bank fold, taking down the depositors as well as the shareholders? That's brave. Most of the money in your typical retail bank isn't going to be in the accounts of people earning the minimum wage, subsisting on benefits or tied to zero hours contracts. It'd be your core vote - the rich, the old, businesspeople - that you'd be randomly selecting for total ruination.

    But yeah, riding to the rescue would be statist. So fuck em.
    The functions of banks need to be distinguished for moral and pragmatic reasons.

    Investing with a view to gain and risk taking is fair enough and should be regulated so that it is honest but if you win you win, if you lose you lose. Buying shares in Acme Widgets; betting on the Gold Cup.

    Banks as a place to store assets not with a view to gain is different. It's a basic function of a modern society.

    If these sorts of deposits were not protected then two things would happen: sophisticated money would go somewhere else where it was protected abroad; vast amounts would go into gilts, backed by government; and the unsophisticated would stick it in a sock under the bed. These are all sub optimal outcomes.

  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    We tried the local top rated restaurant in Trastevere tonight Tonarello, it's incredible. Not easy to get a table if you arrive after 8pm, no bookings and you have to wait in a big queue but having a kid basically means we have to get the earliest dinner seating which is usually 7pm.

    Anyone coming to Rome should absolutely fuck central Rome off and stay in Trastevere instead. I got the tip from an Italian colleague who said we'd enjoy it there much more than anywhere near the tourist sites and she was absolutely right. Amazing bars, restaurants and a properly chill atmosphere. We've got a baby sitter arranged for Tuesday and Thursday night so we're going to explore Rome late at night and life without having a baby which will be, err, interesting...

    Agree on Trastevere, it is a great place. However, I wouldn't totally neglect the centre - try out Maccheroni and La Matricianella (*), which are very good but at slightly different ends of the spectrum. We also like Roscioli although it can get packed and it is touristy.

    * If Mrs Max (or you) like your shoes, there is a very good boutique shoe shop next door. Also Schostal is round teh corner, which is very good for knitwear...
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,156
    edited March 2023

    Foxy said:

    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


    4m x 4m sounds like a lot when you've got 75 million people.

    That's 1200 sq km, or well over 100 Rutland Waters.
    We only need that if not a drop of rain falls in a year, and no one cuts usage!
    Well, no, if not a drop of rain fell for a year you'd need a lot more than that, because some of the water in the reservoir at the start of the year would evaporate during the year. I've no idea what the scale is of evaporation losses from reservoirs, but they're going to be higher at precisely those times when you most need the water stored in reservoirs (when it's sunny and no rain is falling).

    This makes calculating what reservoir capacity you need to get through a drought scenario a bit more complicated than simply working out the volume of everyone's water usage.

    Given the value of land in the UK I can understand the reluctance to build more reservoirs. They'd surely end up being ridiculously expensive just because of the value of the land being inundated. But if you're not going to build more reservoirs then you need to get serious about incorporating smart design in new buildings to collect and conserve water, so that the demand for water from reservoirs is reduced. Simply doing nothing and then telling people not to flush their toilets doesn't really cut it as a water strategy.
    In a way, it's a similar issue with the way that British houses have mediocre insulation. We've been collectively casual with water because there's been no need to be frugal. We've not bothered being careful how we keep our homes warm due to both a temperate climate and abundant coal and methane.

    Various factors have shoved us to a different but of the solution space, and the transitions are painful.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,620
    rcs1000 said:

    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-19/credit-suisse-s-17-billion-of-risky-bonds-are-now-worthless?srnd=premium-uk
    They are CoCos, not bonds.
    CoCo is short for "contingent convertible _bond_" no? But fair enough, they're not what most people think of as a bond.
    Technically, before any bank goes bust, CoCos convert to equity. And I think you can make the case that Credit Suisse is insolvent and therefore needs to convert the CoCos now. This would mean that equity holders would be essentially wiped out and the CoCo owners would share the $2bn in UBS equity that is being shared out.
    I was a Portfolio Manager when the CoCos were being created in the wake of the GFC, and I asked a colleague about them.

    It's very simple, he said. If the bank does really badly then you get wiped out like the equity holders. And if the bank does moderately well, you earn a tiny premium over what you would have got in the company's senior debt. They were bought, he opined, by yield hungry idiots who didn't understand risk and one could - with Excel and half a bottle of red wine - build a portfolio of equity and debt that would perform better in essentially all scenarios.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,959
    edited March 2023
    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-19/credit-suisse-s-17-billion-of-risky-bonds-are-now-worthless?srnd=premium-uk
    They are CoCos, not bonds.
    CoCo is short for "contingent convertible _bond_" no? But fair enough, they're not what most people think of as a bond.
    Co-Co stands for a locomotive with three axles on each bogie, each axle with its own traction motor. Eg. the Deltics (Class 55), Class 37, 47, 50, 57, 58, 59 and 66.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452

    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-19/credit-suisse-s-17-billion-of-risky-bonds-are-now-worthless?srnd=premium-uk
    They are CoCos, not bonds.
    CoCo is short for "contingent convertible _bond_" no? But fair enough, they're not what most people think of as a bond.
    Co-Co stands for a locomotive with three axles on each bogie, each axle with its own traction motor. Eg. the Deltics (Class 55), Class 37, 47, 50, 57, 58, 59 and 66.
    The yield and risk curves for owning a Deltic would be interesting.
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    We tried the local top rated restaurant in Trastevere tonight Tonarello, it's incredible. Not easy to get a table if you arrive after 8pm, no bookings and you have to wait in a big queue but having a kid basically means we have to get the earliest dinner seating which is usually 7pm.

    Anyone coming to Rome should absolutely fuck central Rome off and stay in Trastevere instead. I got the tip from an Italian colleague who said we'd enjoy it there much more than anywhere near the tourist sites and she was absolutely right. Amazing bars, restaurants and a properly chill atmosphere. We've got a baby sitter arranged for Tuesday and Thursday night so we're going to explore Rome late at night and life without having a baby which will be, err, interesting...

    Stayed there in October and had some amazing food and wine, so many great little bars everywhere. Also had a fairly white knuckle taxi ride from central station to Trastevere, as the driver tried to avoid tourists, a massive protest and some traffic cops. The amusement was well worth 10 euro.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,822

    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-19/credit-suisse-s-17-billion-of-risky-bonds-are-now-worthless?srnd=premium-uk
    They are CoCos, not bonds.
    CoCo is short for "contingent convertible _bond_" no? But fair enough, they're not what most people think of as a bond.
    Co-Co stands for a locomotive with three axles on each bogie, each axle with its own traction motor. Eg. the Deltics (Class 55), Class 37, 47, 50, 57, 58, 59 and 66.
    Coco? Stop clowning around - you're just Chanel-ing your inner anorak there. Time for a nice hot drink methinks.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,686

    MaxPB said:

    We tried the local top rated restaurant in Trastevere tonight Tonarello, it's incredible. Not easy to get a table if you arrive after 8pm, no bookings and you have to wait in a big queue but having a kid basically means we have to get the earliest dinner seating which is usually 7pm.

    Anyone coming to Rome should absolutely fuck central Rome off and stay in Trastevere instead. I got the tip from an Italian colleague who said we'd enjoy it there much more than anywhere near the tourist sites and she was absolutely right. Amazing bars, restaurants and a properly chill atmosphere. We've got a baby sitter arranged for Tuesday and Thursday night so we're going to explore Rome late at night and life without having a baby which will be, err, interesting...

    Whatever Mediterranean countries get wrong, they get the art of everyday chill living right, in a way that Britain struggles with.

    Glad you're having a good time.
    Yes and no, this feels like Hoxton or Shoreditch to me which is probably why my colleague recommended it to me. Were I young and single I could imagine life in a shared flat in Hoxton and the surrounding areas to be pretty chill as it still has a very community within a big city vibe.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269

    Here we go.

    It shouldn't be LloydsTSB/HBOS all over again.

    Troubled bank Credit Suisse has been rescued by its Swiss rival UBS in a government-backed deal.

    Sunday evening's announcement came after a weekend of emergency talks in Switzerland between the two banks and the country's financial regulators.

    The Swiss National Bank said the deal was the best way to restore the confidence of financial markets and to manage risks to the economy.

    Both banks will be given a liquidity assistance loan of up to $110bn.

    The federal government said in order to reduce any risks for UBS it would grant a guarantee against potential losses worth $9.6bn (£7.9bn).


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65007871

    What in Christ's name is in CS's books that the Swiss government is so desperate to dump on UBS?

    To put that $9.6 billion into context - the total losses (losses, fines & remediation costs) from the Adoboli, FX and LIBOR scandals was $5 billion. And that does not include the fines for the tax evasion the Private Bank did for US clients nor the French tax evasion fine & costs, let alone the many other smaller cock-ups over the same period.

    So UBS have to hope that CS's cock ups won't amount to more than $9.6 billion.

    That decision strikes me as an optimistic assumption.

    Anyway I've just been sent the papers for the April AGM. It might actually be worth going this year.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,959

    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fffs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What is the point of capitalism if these banks are not allowed to fail?

    The people owning the banks are losing their underpants. As are the bond holders.

    The people who deposited money with the banks don't.

    If the local carpark goes bankrupt, I think we all agree that people with cars in the carpark should get them back?
    The bondholders at Credit Suisse won't lose a penny. The bank is being sold, it has not gone bust.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-19/credit-suisse-s-17-billion-of-risky-bonds-are-now-worthless?srnd=premium-uk
    They are CoCos, not bonds.
    CoCo is short for "contingent convertible _bond_" no? But fair enough, they're not what most people think of as a bond.
    Co-Co stands for a locomotive with three axles on each bogie, each axle with its own traction motor. Eg. the Deltics (Class 55), Class 37, 47, 50, 57, 58, 59 and 66.
    Coco? Stop clowning around - you're just Chanel-ing your inner anorak there. Time for a nice hot drink methinks.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Co_locomotive
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo-Bo
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UIC_classification_of_locomotive_axle_arrangements
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 28,147
    This is.a bit ridiculous.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/19/dont-want-pride-sex-flags-post-leads-suspension-tory-councillor/

    "An 81-year-old Tory councillor has been suspended after she said she doesn’t want “Pride sex flags along my high street”.

    Angela Kilmartin, a councillor on Braintree District Council in Essex, wrote on Facebook that she did not want any “sex flags” on the high street in Witham.

    She said: “I don’t want Pride sex flags along my high street. I don’t even want heterosexual flags along my high street.

    “Sex is for the bedroom and private life, not for displaying preferences in public.”"
  • Options
    pingping Posts: 3,778
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,054

    Foxy said:

    On reservoirs - each person uses something like 160m3 of water a year.

    Sounds a lot?

    That's a piece of reservoir 4m by 4m if it's 10m deep.

    You don't need to store a fraction of an entire years water. Maybe 25% of that.


    4m x 4m sounds like a lot when you've got 75 million people.

    That's 1200 sq km, or well over 100 Rutland Waters.
    We only need that if not a drop of rain falls in a year, and no one cuts usage!
    I know, but claiming it as a small amount is a bit naughty.

    We really ought to measure the area required for each person based on rainfall, which is only a little over 0.5m in much of the East. If you take into account evapotranspiration you are left with an excess of barely more than 50mm.

    So here in the Flatlands your 160m3 ends up requiring a catchment of 60m x 60m.
    The catchment area isn't the problem. It is that there isn't the reservoir capacity to store the excess water that exists. So as to time shift it to the drier bits of the year.
    There really isn't much in the way excess water in significant parts of the country.

    We are mostly on a groundwater supply here (except for what is needed to dilute the nitrates to an acceptable level) and there is definitely a limit to the amount available before the water table gets too low.

    The only possible source for more water is the Peak District but that's all been used up for Derby and points south.

    Further west, I agree, there's plenty of rain. The south west shouldn't be having drought orders.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,253
    edited March 2023
    ping said:
    It is.

    Shame he didn't apply his own logic about the damage creating extra complexities causes when working in government himself.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 28,147

    MaxPB said:

    We tried the local top rated restaurant in Trastevere tonight Tonarello, it's incredible. Not easy to get a table if you arrive after 8pm, no bookings and you have to wait in a big queue but having a kid basically means we have to get the earliest dinner seating which is usually 7pm.

    Anyone coming to Rome should absolutely fuck central Rome off and stay in Trastevere instead. I got the tip from an Italian colleague who said we'd enjoy it there much more than anywhere near the tourist sites and she was absolutely right. Amazing bars, restaurants and a properly chill atmosphere. We've got a baby sitter arranged for Tuesday and Thursday night so we're going to explore Rome late at night and life without having a baby which will be, err, interesting...

    Whatever Mediterranean countries get wrong, they get the art of everyday chill living right, in a way that Britain struggles with.

    Glad you're having a good time.
    I know, I was in Seville a couple of weeks ago.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,226

    Re: the current state (of incompetence) of the Scottish National Party, as I opined previous thread, looks to me like the SNP under the leadership of current Queenfish of Caledonia, is doing a tribute act by impersonating the Kingfish of Louisiana, Huey Long - in drag?

    Note that when Huey was removed from the scene in 1935 by an assassins bullet - or more likely, by bullet fired by one of his bodyguards that ricocheted - the once totally dominate Long organization fell apart in Louisiana. The fed already had Huey & his henchpeople on their radar screen, for variety of reasons of which Long's looming challenge to FDR, from populist left, for 1936 presidential nomination.

    Within a few years, the Longite governor was in federal prison, Huey's handpicked president of LSU was in state prison, and an anti-Long candidate won the governorship.

    The Long faction of the Democratic party survived, and even won the governorship a few times, most notably under Huey's brother, Earl Long aka "Uncle Earl" and Edwin Edwards aka "The Cajun Fox" but it was never the same as when the Kingfish ruled the roost . . . or rather the swamp.


    Earl Long was an interesting man. Racist and corrupt, but yet, someone who did some real good in an understated way (ensuring equal pay for black State workers, and making it easier for black people to vote.)

    Sometimes (as with LBJ) not very nice people can make a real difference to the world.
  • Options
    solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    Let's hope the CoCos don't pop, then.
  • Options
    pm215pm215 Posts: 977
    pigeon said:


    Yes, the nominal limit is meaningless. It's not just the risk of bank runs - allowing large depositors to be cleared out would randomly destroy large numbers of businesses, as well as people who happen to be in the middle of buying/selling their homes when the game of musical chairs stops.

    Temporary high deposits due to a house purchase/sale are explicitly covered by the UK scheme already.
  • Options
    pingping Posts: 3,778
    edited March 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    This is.a bit ridiculous.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/19/dont-want-pride-sex-flags-post-leads-suspension-tory-councillor/

    "An 81-year-old Tory councillor has been suspended after she said she doesn’t want “Pride sex flags along my high street”.

    Angela Kilmartin, a councillor on Braintree District Council in Essex, wrote on Facebook that she did not want any “sex flags” on the high street in Witham.

    She said: “I don’t want Pride sex flags along my high street. I don’t even want heterosexual flags along my high street.

    “Sex is for the bedroom and private life, not for displaying preferences in public.”"

    I agree, Andy.

    Talking about sex on Facebook? It’s disgusting.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,686
    Cyclefree said:

    Here we go.

    It shouldn't be LloydsTSB/HBOS all over again.

    Troubled bank Credit Suisse has been rescued by its Swiss rival UBS in a government-backed deal.

    Sunday evening's announcement came after a weekend of emergency talks in Switzerland between the two banks and the country's financial regulators.

    The Swiss National Bank said the deal was the best way to restore the confidence of financial markets and to manage risks to the economy.

    Both banks will be given a liquidity assistance loan of up to $110bn.

    The federal government said in order to reduce any risks for UBS it would grant a guarantee against potential losses worth $9.6bn (£7.9bn).


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65007871

    What in Christ's name is in CS's books that the Swiss government is so desperate to dump on UBS?

    To put that $9.6 billion into context - the total losses (losses, fines & remediation costs) from the Adoboli, FX and LIBOR scandals was $5 billion. And that does not include the fines for the tax evasion the Private Bank did for US clients nor the French tax evasion fine & costs, let alone the many other smaller cock-ups over the same period.

    So UBS have to hope that CS's cock ups won't amount to more than $9.6 billion.

    That decision strikes me as an optimistic assumption.

    Anyway I've just been sent the papers for the April AGM. It might actually be worth going this year.
    RBS lost ~£40bn in the end before becoming profitable, HBOS was around £30bn and it dragged down Lloyds. The Swiss government have given up their mantle of boring competence with this move. How did they not learn from the disaster that was the politically motivated shotgun wedding between Lloyds and HBOS. We have a very recent example of a bad bank destroying a perfectly reasonable one because it's losses were so huge.

    As my old manager said in his report, "all they've done is spread the contagion".
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,691

    Let's hope the CoCos don't pop, then.

    Someone might wind up doing porridge if they do...
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,655
    Andy_JS said:

    This is.a bit ridiculous.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/19/dont-want-pride-sex-flags-post-leads-suspension-tory-councillor/

    "An 81-year-old Tory councillor has been suspended after she said she doesn’t want “Pride sex flags along my high street”.

    Angela Kilmartin, a councillor on Braintree District Council in Essex, wrote on Facebook that she did not want any “sex flags” on the high street in Witham.

    She said: “I don’t want Pride sex flags along my high street. I don’t even want heterosexual flags along my high street.

    “Sex is for the bedroom and private life, not for displaying preferences in public.”"

    This is the most heterosexual flag I know, is it what she means?


  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,822
    Foxy said:

    Let's hope the CoCos don't pop, then.

    Someone might wind up doing porridge if they do...
    A cereal offender?
  • Options
    pingping Posts: 3,778
    edited March 2023
    Equity futures flat.

    We’ll see what happens when Asia opens.

    Probably not very much.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,226
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT: I doubt that I have persuaded many of you, but I will repeat my belief that Trump is not certain to win the Republican nomination, and that his status, if anything, has been eroding within the party.

    You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.

    (I have no idea what the odds on him winning the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.

    Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)

    Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)

    The Republican Primary is an extremely difficult election to call.

    I tend to think that Trump has a hold over about a third of the US Republican Party - as in, they see him as their man and he can do no wrong, etc. There's another 20-30% that are Trump-ist in leanings, and who are strong supporters of the President, but who would be quite open to voting for another candidate, if they were to find one with a similar mindset and a better chance of winning.

    That's about 55-60% of the Republican Party.

    There's another 10-15% who will are mostly anti-Democrat, who supported Trump (as he was anti-Democrat), but who would definitely prefer someone else next time around.

    And then there is 25-30% who are committed Republicans, but who are disgusted by the corruption and venality of Trump.

    The issue for the Republicans is that they have (mostly) a winner takes all Primary system. This means that if there 4-5 candidates, then Trump can win in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc., with 30-35% of the vote. And if Trump wins the first few contests, then he will be mighty hard to stop from winning the contest.

    FWIW, I think a DeSantis v Trump head-to-head would be won by DeSantis, who would in turn beat Biden or Harris. I'm not a great DeSantis fan, but I think the latest Florida Gubernatorial election shows there's a lot of appetite for Trumpism delivered by someone who is not Trump. Of course, there is an important caveat here. If Trump is still arguing he won the Republican nomination and is not supporting DeSantis, then I think it could all look very different.

    I don't really see a path for a non-Trump, no-DeSantis candidate. I mean, it's possible someone with charisma and the Evangelical vote could do it, but the former requirement knocks out Pence. And I don't see many other hats in the ring.
    I thought the vote from Florida was remarkable. A swing State which has shifted firmly into Red status.
This discussion has been closed.