Howdy, Stranger!

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

Hoist with his own petard – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 28 in General
Hoist with his own petard – politicalbetting.com

A couple of more observations from me on todays @IpsosUK / @britishfuture immigration polling and why I think it’s a problematic issue for Cons. 1/ We know it’s a highly salient issue for Con supporters /2019 Cons they’re really unhappy re boats / numbers pic.twitter.com/KaKGmAS9SM

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,841
    edited March 28
    First.

    And for a bit of hilarity, I woke up this morning to see the following twitter post:

    "I fully acknowledge that I’m a moron but I still don’t understand how a bridge comes down and now the harbor is closed for months. The harbor didn’t come down. The bridge did. Do the ships need to sail under a bridge to function?"
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,752
    It appears mathematics isnt the Tories strong point
  • gonatasgonatas Posts: 12
    Good morning.
    Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular?
    Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted?
    It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like.
    Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090

    First.

    And for a bit of hilarity, I woke up this morning to see the following twitter post:

    "I fully acknowledge that I’m a moron but I still don’t understand how a bridge comes down and now the harbor is closed for months. The harbor didn’t come down. The bridge did. Do the ships need to sail under a bridge to function?"

    Why are the Department for Education posting about bridges?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241
    Morning all.

    The questions are pretty unreliable. It’s quite difficult to disagree with the main Rwanda question.

    Frame it another way: do you agree with Britain bolstering its workforce in entertainment, hospitality, and services by bringing in able and fit workers from other countries? …

    … and you’ll get near 100% support.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,335

    It appears mathematics isnt the Tories strong point

    That implies that something else is.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,798

    First.

    And for a bit of hilarity, I woke up this morning to see the following twitter post:

    "I fully acknowledge that I’m a moron but I still don’t understand how a bridge comes down and now the harbor is closed for months. The harbor didn’t come down. The bridge did. Do the ships need to sail under a bridge to function?"

    Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, Tilbury is one solution to such problems.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,000
    Labour are in a strange position with this.

    On the one hand, the Tories are making a right old mess of it, and tactical opportunism says to point this out - Tories are overseeing huge net immigration, with a flagship policy that is (a) a gimmick that doesn’t address actual issues, (b) not working, and (c) even if it did work would be pissing a stream of money into hurricane-force headwinds. And *this is what the Tories are supposed to be strong on* (see also small business, home-owning, law and order, the economy etc.)

    On the other hand, Labour voters tend to be more relaxed about migration and care more about welfare of people seeking asylum. And Starmer will inherit a big problem here that really needs a lot of time and money to resolve. So (a) it risks being offputting rhetoric to a lot of your voters, and (b) hostage to fortune.

    On balance I think it’s probably not in Labour’s interest to turn this into an election issue. As the thread title implies, they probably don’t need to anyway.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,335
    edited March 28
    Heathener said:

    Morning all.

    The questions are pretty unreliable. It’s quite difficult to disagree with the main Rwanda question.

    Frame it another way: do you agree with Britain bolstering its workforce in entertainment, hospitality, and services by bringing in able and fit workers from other countries? …

    … and you’ll get near 100% support.

    Not quite 100%, but...

    The paradox of public opinion on immigration: people want it reduced overall but favour the status quo or rises for all professions.




    https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1729458640942256537?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241

    Heathener said:

    Morning all.

    The questions are pretty unreliable. It’s quite difficult to disagree with the main Rwanda question.

    Frame it another way: do you agree with Britain bolstering its workforce in entertainment, hospitality, and services by bringing in able and fit workers from other countries? …

    … and you’ll get near 100% support.

    Not quite 100%, but...

    The paradox of public opinion on immigration: people want it reduced overall but favour the status quo or rises for all professions.




    https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1729458640942256537?
    Yeah and I bet if you framed it the way I did it would indeed be near 100%

    A lot of these opinion polls are unreliable. It’s what makes the voting intention one important, because it’s generally consistent and therefore gives a more reliable yardstick.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,829
    ...
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241
    edited March 28
    It’s a strange time politically. The last time it felt like this was the run up to the 1997 election.

    It’s going to be a sea-change election and almost everyone knows that, so we’re just 'ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.'

    'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,327
    Ghedebrav said:

    Labour are in a strange position with this.

    On the one hand, the Tories are making a right old mess of it, and tactical opportunism says to point this out - Tories are overseeing huge net immigration, with a flagship policy that is (a) a gimmick that doesn’t address actual issues, (b) not working, and (c) even if it did work would be pissing a stream of money into hurricane-force headwinds. And *this is what the Tories are supposed to be strong on* (see also small business, home-owning, law and order, the economy etc.)

    On the other hand, Labour voters tend to be more relaxed about migration and care more about welfare of people seeking asylum. And Starmer will inherit a big problem here that really needs a lot of time and money to resolve. So (a) it risks being offputting rhetoric to a lot of your voters, and (b) hostage to fortune.

    On balance I think it’s probably not in Labour’s interest to turn this into an election issue. As the thread title implies, they probably don’t need to anyway.

    Alternatively, you can view it as a major opportunity to unite different groups of voters who have very different priorities and concerns.

    You do that by arguing that yes, we want net migration to be lower as a goal, but that the right's hardline measures to scare people off from coming here simply don't work. For a start, because as we've found out, in the short term certain sectors of the economy and public services rely on it - so all the hardline rhetoric in the world is empty - but that should change as far as is possible. And that students should be excluded from figures unless they stay permanently (a view that has public support).

    On undocumented immigration (i.e. the boats) - a small proportion of the total but one that understandably gets backs up as is most disruptive. You can argue that a speedier, more efficient system and international deals that resolve cases quickly and fairly is both more humane - pleasing your liberals - and will reduce both numbers and disruption - pleasing your anti-immigration voters.

    Easier said than done, obviously. But with the Tories being seen to have failed so utterly even numbers that would have once been seen as Labour being 'soft' on immigration could be quite easily said to represent major reductions.

    The space is there for Labour to be both more liberal and humane than the Tories sound and yet comparatively deliver lower figures those sceptical of immigration desire. Which rather shows what a mess the Tories have made.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,284
    MJW said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Labour are in a strange position with this.

    On the one hand, the Tories are making a right old mess of it, and tactical opportunism says to point this out - Tories are overseeing huge net immigration, with a flagship policy that is (a) a gimmick that doesn’t address actual issues, (b) not working, and (c) even if it did work would be pissing a stream of money into hurricane-force headwinds. And *this is what the Tories are supposed to be strong on* (see also small business, home-owning, law and order, the economy etc.)

    On the other hand, Labour voters tend to be more relaxed about migration and care more about welfare of people seeking asylum. And Starmer will inherit a big problem here that really needs a lot of time and money to resolve. So (a) it risks being offputting rhetoric to a lot of your voters, and (b) hostage to fortune.

    On balance I think it’s probably not in Labour’s interest to turn this into an election issue. As the thread title implies, they probably don’t need to anyway.

    Alternatively, you can view it as a major opportunity to unite different groups of voters who have very different priorities and concerns.

    You do that by arguing that yes, we want net migration to be lower as a goal, but that the right's hardline measures to scare people off from coming here simply don't work. For a start, because as we've found out, in the short term certain sectors of the economy and public services rely on it - so all the hardline rhetoric in the world is empty - but that should change as far as is possible. And that students should be excluded from figures unless they stay permanently (a view that has public support).

    On undocumented immigration (i.e. the boats) - a small proportion of the total but one that understandably gets backs up as is most disruptive. You can argue that a speedier, more efficient system and international deals that resolve cases quickly and fairly is both more humane - pleasing your liberals - and will reduce both numbers and disruption - pleasing your anti-immigration voters.

    Easier said than done, obviously. But with the Tories being seen to have failed so utterly even numbers that would have once been seen as Labour being 'soft' on immigration could be quite easily said to represent major reductions.

    The space is there for Labour to be both more liberal and humane than the Tories sound and yet comparatively deliver lower figures those sceptical of immigration desire. Which rather shows what a mess the Tories have made.
    MJW said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Labour are in a strange position with this.

    On the one hand, the Tories are making a right old mess of it, and tactical opportunism says to point this out - Tories are overseeing huge net immigration, with a flagship policy that is (a) a gimmick that doesn’t address actual issues, (b) not working, and (c) even if it did work would be pissing a stream of money into hurricane-force headwinds. And *this is what the Tories are supposed to be strong on* (see also small business, home-owning, law and order, the economy etc.)

    On the other hand, Labour voters tend to be more relaxed about migration and care more about welfare of people seeking asylum. And Starmer will inherit a big problem here that really needs a lot of time and money to resolve. So (a) it risks being offputting rhetoric to a lot of your voters, and (b) hostage to fortune.

    On balance I think it’s probably not in Labour’s interest to turn this into an election issue. As the thread title implies, they probably don’t need to anyway.

    Alternatively, you can view it as a major opportunity to unite different groups of voters who have very different priorities and concerns.

    You do that by arguing that yes, we want net migration to be lower as a goal, but that the right's hardline measures to scare people off from coming here simply don't work. For a start, because as we've found out, in the short term certain sectors of the economy and public services rely on it - so all the hardline rhetoric in the world is empty - but that should change as far as is possible. And that students should be excluded from figures unless they stay permanently (a view that has public support).

    On undocumented immigration (i.e. the boats) - a small proportion of the total but one that understandably gets backs up as is most disruptive. You can argue that a speedier, more efficient system and international deals that resolve cases quickly and fairly is both more humane - pleasing your liberals - and will reduce both numbers and disruption - pleasing your anti-immigration voters.

    Easier said than done, obviously. But with the Tories being seen to have failed so utterly even numbers that would have once been seen as Labour being 'soft' on immigration could be quite easily said to represent major reductions.

    The space is there for Labour to be both more liberal and humane than the Tories sound and yet comparatively deliver lower figures those sceptical of immigration desire. Which rather shows what a mess the Tories have made.
    Yes, there is no easy fix to ther problems of immigration as even the duller voters amongst us are begining to realise. All Labour needs to do is to show that it is working on the problem areas and will continue to try to regulate the flow as humanely and sensibly as possible.

    The Tories have set the bar so low on this issue that Labour ought to be able to clear it effortlessly.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,215
    edited March 28
    Blow for Sunak as revised figures confirm UK did go into recession last year

    Latest estimate from ONS says GDP declined by 0.3% in final quarter of 2023


    Official figures have confirmed the UK economy went into recession at the end of last year, after the latest estimate found it had contracted in the last two quarters of 2023.

    In a blow to the government’s economic standing, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the economy, measured by gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 0.3% in the last three months of the year, unrevised from an earlier estimate.

    It followed contraction of 0.1% in the third quarter of 2023, confirming a technical recession – two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

    As he prepares for a general election, Rishi Sunak has been seeking to reassure Tory MPs that the economy is turning around, after business surveys showed a recovery in private sector activity in the first few months of the year.

    Some previous recessions have been revised away or downgraded to be less severe than first believed. The “double-dip” recession initially recorded by the ONS in 2011 during the tenure of chancellor George Osborne was eventually found not to have happened.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/28/blow-for-sunak-as-revised-figures-confirm-uk-did-go-into-recession-last-year

    ***Legendary modesty klaxon***

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/08/a-uk-recession-in-2022/
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,565
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Doctor, yes.

    Doctor's entire family, no.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,200
    The flights are going to have no impact, either on the boats or on the numbers and the press will be all over any indication of anything untoward happening to one of those transported.

    It’s a total cul de sac, created for itself by an incompetent and malevolent Government.

  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,200
    Heathener said:

    It’s a strange time politically. The last time it felt like this was the run up to the 1997 election.

    It’s going to be a sea-change election and almost everyone knows that, so we’re just 'ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.'

    'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'

    I don’t think this is like 1997 tbh. The country may be sick of the Tories again, but the background is different. The tragedy is that Starmer and co are treating it like it is 1997, when in my view there’s much more appetite for radical change.
  • CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 205
    UK still in recession according to the ONS.... also I heard yesterday that the first three months had record breaking boats crossing.

    That is it... the tories are dog meat. And I guess with that the fantasy that something good might turn up by waiting is totally bunk.

    Just have a GE already!!!!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236
    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,335
    Heathener said:

    It’s a strange time politically. The last time it felt like this was the run up to the 1997 election.

    It’s going to be a sea-change election and almost everyone knows that, so we’re just 'ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.'

    'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'

    (Robert Robinson mode on)
    Would that it were Miss Heather, would that it were.
    (Robert Robinson mode off)

    The Major government did hang on in desperation, and it was relatively quiet. There was Demon Eyes, sure, but the Faust PEB wasn't broadcast. There was an income tax cut, but only a penny, and public sector borrowing could sort of sustain that.

    The current incumbents are desperate, probably more so, and much noisier with it. As Dom C said of Boris, they are apparently willing to try anything now they are cornered. Trouble is, they're rubbish so it's not working.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236

    Blow for Sunak as revised figures confirm UK did go into recession last year

    Latest estimate from ONS says GDP declined by 0.3% in final quarter of 2023


    Official figures have confirmed the UK economy went into recession at the end of last year, after the latest estimate found it had contracted in the last two quarters of 2023.

    In a blow to the government’s economic standing, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the economy, measured by gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 0.3% in the last three months of the year, unrevised from an earlier estimate.

    It followed contraction of 0.1% in the third quarter of 2023, confirming a technical recession – two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

    As he prepares for a general election, Rishi Sunak has been seeking to reassure Tory MPs that the economy is turning around, after business surveys showed a recovery in private sector activity in the first few months of the year.

    Some previous recessions have been revised away or downgraded to be less severe than first believed. The “double-dip” recession initially recorded by the ONS in 2011 during the tenure of chancellor George Osborne was eventually found not to have happened.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/28/blow-for-sunak-as-revised-figures-confirm-uk-did-go-into-recession-last-year

    ***Legendary modesty klaxon***

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/08/a-uk-recession-in-2022/

    PB Tories, who insist that these figures are always revised upwards, please explain.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236

    Heathener said:

    It’s a strange time politically. The last time it felt like this was the run up to the 1997 election.

    It’s going to be a sea-change election and almost everyone knows that, so we’re just 'ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.'

    'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'

    (Robert Robinson mode on)
    Would that it were Miss Heather, would that it were.
    (Robert Robinson mode off)

    The Major government did hang on in desperation, and it was relatively quiet. There was Demon Eyes, sure, but the Faust PEB wasn't broadcast. There was an income tax cut, but only a penny, and public sector borrowing could sort of sustain that.

    The current incumbents are desperate, probably more so, and much noisier with it. As Dom C said of Boris, they are apparently willing to try anything now they are cornered. Trouble is, they're rubbish so it's not working.
    Maybe they should look across the pond for inspiration ...

    Former Trump coup lawyer John Eastman and allies claim Satan behind efforts to hold him accountable
    https://twitter.com/DiscoverFlux/status/1772780081481679211
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,325
    Nigelb said:

    Blow for Sunak as revised figures confirm UK did go into recession last year

    Latest estimate from ONS says GDP declined by 0.3% in final quarter of 2023


    Official figures have confirmed the UK economy went into recession at the end of last year, after the latest estimate found it had contracted in the last two quarters of 2023.

    In a blow to the government’s economic standing, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the economy, measured by gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 0.3% in the last three months of the year, unrevised from an earlier estimate.

    It followed contraction of 0.1% in the third quarter of 2023, confirming a technical recession – two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

    As he prepares for a general election, Rishi Sunak has been seeking to reassure Tory MPs that the economy is turning around, after business surveys showed a recovery in private sector activity in the first few months of the year.

    Some previous recessions have been revised away or downgraded to be less severe than first believed. The “double-dip” recession initially recorded by the ONS in 2011 during the tenure of chancellor George Osborne was eventually found not to have happened.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/28/blow-for-sunak-as-revised-figures-confirm-uk-did-go-into-recession-last-year

    ***Legendary modesty klaxon***

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/08/a-uk-recession-in-2022/

    PB Tories, who insist that these figures are always revised upwards, please explain.
    The figures really show little or no movement but politics being what it is, it will always be portrayed as bad news.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241
    edited March 28

    Heathener said:

    It’s a strange time politically. The last time it felt like this was the run up to the 1997 election.

    It’s going to be a sea-change election and almost everyone knows that, so we’re just 'ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.'

    'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'

    I don’t think this is like 1997 tbh. The country may be sick of the Tories again, but the background is different. The tragedy is that Starmer and co are treating it like it is 1997, when in my view there’s much more appetite for radical change.
    Yeah, I was only referring to this phoney war stage really and hence the Time lyrics.

    It’s a waiting game now and it’s pointless. That’s all I meant.

    p.s. Labour don’t need to do anything very much and they should definitely say nothing radical.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,829
    @faisalislam
    Economy in Q4 2023 confirmed at £566.6 billion… (ABMI official measure)

    smaller than it was in Q1 2021 (£567bn. no net growth over two years, down 0.1%), and

    Smaller than in Q4 2022, when the PM and Chancellor arrived in Downing Street (£568bn … down 0.3%)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236

    Nigelb said:

    Blow for Sunak as revised figures confirm UK did go into recession last year

    Latest estimate from ONS says GDP declined by 0.3% in final quarter of 2023


    Official figures have confirmed the UK economy went into recession at the end of last year, after the latest estimate found it had contracted in the last two quarters of 2023.

    In a blow to the government’s economic standing, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the economy, measured by gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 0.3% in the last three months of the year, unrevised from an earlier estimate.

    It followed contraction of 0.1% in the third quarter of 2023, confirming a technical recession – two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

    As he prepares for a general election, Rishi Sunak has been seeking to reassure Tory MPs that the economy is turning around, after business surveys showed a recovery in private sector activity in the first few months of the year.

    Some previous recessions have been revised away or downgraded to be less severe than first believed. The “double-dip” recession initially recorded by the ONS in 2011 during the tenure of chancellor George Osborne was eventually found not to have happened.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/28/blow-for-sunak-as-revised-figures-confirm-uk-did-go-into-recession-last-year

    ***Legendary modesty klaxon***

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/08/a-uk-recession-in-2022/

    PB Tories, who insist that these figures are always revised upwards, please explain.
    The figures really show little or no movement but politics being what it is, it will always be portrayed as bad news.
    Nice try.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236

    In you couldn't make it up news.

    Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser rebuked for breaking lobbying rule..

    You could easily make it up.
    It's just that with this shower, it would be entirely unnecessary.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,829

    Nigelb said:

    Blow for Sunak as revised figures confirm UK did go into recession last year

    Latest estimate from ONS says GDP declined by 0.3% in final quarter of 2023


    Official figures have confirmed the UK economy went into recession at the end of last year, after the latest estimate found it had contracted in the last two quarters of 2023.

    In a blow to the government’s economic standing, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the economy, measured by gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 0.3% in the last three months of the year, unrevised from an earlier estimate.

    It followed contraction of 0.1% in the third quarter of 2023, confirming a technical recession – two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

    As he prepares for a general election, Rishi Sunak has been seeking to reassure Tory MPs that the economy is turning around, after business surveys showed a recovery in private sector activity in the first few months of the year.

    Some previous recessions have been revised away or downgraded to be less severe than first believed. The “double-dip” recession initially recorded by the ONS in 2011 during the tenure of chancellor George Osborne was eventually found not to have happened.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/28/blow-for-sunak-as-revised-figures-confirm-uk-did-go-into-recession-last-year

    ***Legendary modesty klaxon***

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/08/a-uk-recession-in-2022/

    PB Tories, who insist that these figures are always revised upwards, please explain.
    The figures really show little or no movement but politics being what it is, it will always be portrayed as bad news.
    The economy is smaller than it was when Richi took over.

    There is no good way to spin that
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,565
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is easy to invest other people's money
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,898
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    Such monopoly suppliers should also be banned from spending large amounts on television advertising. It serves no useful purpose and costs money.

    And good morning, one at all!
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,043

    In you couldn't make it up news.

    Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser rebuked for breaking lobbying rule

    Lord Geidt breached parliamentary rules by helping a US satellite firm influence MoD officials, the Lords standards commissioner has found


    Boris Johnson’s former ethics adviser has apologised for breaching House of Lords rules by helping a US company influence Ministry of Defence officials.

    Parliament’s standards watchdog said that Lord Geidt gave introductory remarks at a meeting in May 2021 between MoD officials and Theia Group.

    At the time, he was employed as an adviser by the company, which specialises in satellites and aerospace. He was also the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, having been appointed by Johnson the previous month.

    Geidt’s actions broke a ban on peers providing “parliamentary services” in return for payment, the Lords standards commissioner found after a three-month investigation.

    The crossbench peer’s presence at the meeting counted as “assisting an outside organisation in influencing officials”, according to a report released by the commissioner on Tuesday.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ethics-adviser-geidt-lobbying-rule-bk62gbqh9

    Ha ha. Says it all really.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241
    edited March 28
    Anyway I’m off for a looooong weekend in London which I haven’t done for many years. All sorts of events lined up, from footy matches to art galleries, gardens to historic houses, and culminating* in the wonderful Asmik Grigorian singing the title role in Madama Butterfly at ROH.

    * Hoping to goodness she isn’t indisposed which happened to me for Darcey Bussell’s swansong ROH appearance.

    p.s. I’m such a socialist :D
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090

    It appears mathematics isnt the Tories strong point

    That implies that something else is.
    They can organise a mean boozy party.

    But not their mean, boozy party.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,150

    Heathener said:

    It’s a strange time politically. The last time it felt like this was the run up to the 1997 election.

    It’s going to be a sea-change election and almost everyone knows that, so we’re just 'ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.'

    'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'

    I don’t think this is like 1997 tbh. The country may be sick of the Tories again, but the background is different. The tragedy is that Starmer and co are treating it like it is 1997, when in my view there’s much more appetite for radical change.
    I think the problem is that not enough will vote for radical change. So instead they are timid, win a lot, then say "things are much worse than we thought" and then propose radical change.

    The guide is Starmer's 5 missions. You can't do those without being radical.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,565
    Scott_xP said:

    Nigelb said:

    Blow for Sunak as revised figures confirm UK did go into recession last year

    Latest estimate from ONS says GDP declined by 0.3% in final quarter of 2023


    Official figures have confirmed the UK economy went into recession at the end of last year, after the latest estimate found it had contracted in the last two quarters of 2023.

    In a blow to the government’s economic standing, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the economy, measured by gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 0.3% in the last three months of the year, unrevised from an earlier estimate.

    It followed contraction of 0.1% in the third quarter of 2023, confirming a technical recession – two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

    As he prepares for a general election, Rishi Sunak has been seeking to reassure Tory MPs that the economy is turning around, after business surveys showed a recovery in private sector activity in the first few months of the year.

    Some previous recessions have been revised away or downgraded to be less severe than first believed. The “double-dip” recession initially recorded by the ONS in 2011 during the tenure of chancellor George Osborne was eventually found not to have happened.


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/28/blow-for-sunak-as-revised-figures-confirm-uk-did-go-into-recession-last-year

    ***Legendary modesty klaxon***

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/08/a-uk-recession-in-2022/

    PB Tories, who insist that these figures are always revised upwards, please explain.
    The figures really show little or no movement but politics being what it is, it will always be portrayed as bad news.
    The economy is smaller than it was when Richi took over.

    There is no good way to spin that
    And with the substantial increase in population, the per capita economy has certainly shrunk.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    edited March 28
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm willing to bet they will go the way the water companies want them to though.

    Regulators like this covering large monopoly providers are ultimately clients of the companies they are meant to be regulating. They don't care about consumers any more than the companies do.

    Ofgem are a particularly egregious example but I've seen no evidence Ofwat are better.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,215

    In you couldn't make it up news.

    Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser rebuked for breaking lobbying rule

    Lord Geidt breached parliamentary rules by helping a US satellite firm influence MoD officials, the Lords standards commissioner has found


    Boris Johnson’s former ethics adviser has apologised for breaching House of Lords rules by helping a US company influence Ministry of Defence officials.

    Parliament’s standards watchdog said that Lord Geidt gave introductory remarks at a meeting in May 2021 between MoD officials and Theia Group.

    At the time, he was employed as an adviser by the company, which specialises in satellites and aerospace. He was also the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, having been appointed by Johnson the previous month.

    Geidt’s actions broke a ban on peers providing “parliamentary services” in return for payment, the Lords standards commissioner found after a three-month investigation.

    The crossbench peer’s presence at the meeting counted as “assisting an outside organisation in influencing officials”, according to a report released by the commissioner on Tuesday.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ethics-adviser-geidt-lobbying-rule-bk62gbqh9

    Ha ha. Says it all really.
    Former private secretary to the Queen Elizabeth II to boot, the establishment is rotten.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    Heathener said:

    Anyway I’m off for a looooong weekend in London which I haven’t done for many years. All sorts of events lined up, from footy matches to art galleries, gardens to historic houses, and culminating* in the wonderful Asmik Grigorian singing the title role in Madama Butterfly at ROH.

    * Hoping to goodness she isn’t indisposed which happened to me for Darcey Bussell’s swansong ROH appearance.

    p.s. I’m such a socialist :D

    ROH ?

    Ring of Honour ?

    I didn't know she was a wrestler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Honor
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,482
    Heathener said:

    Anyway I’m off for a looooong weekend in London which I haven’t done for many years. All sorts of events lined up, from footy matches to art galleries, gardens to historic houses, and culminating* in the wonderful Asmik Grigorian singing the title role in Madama Butterfly at ROH.

    * Hoping to goodness she isn’t indisposed which happened to me for Darcey Bussell’s swansong ROH appearance.

    p.s. I’m such a socialist :D

    Nothings too good for the workers! Enjoy.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241
    Taz said:
    Last point before I travel but I think we may underestimate the importance of the NHS to pensioners.

    It’s all very well giving a few quid back but what really vexes many OAPs is whether or not they are going to be cared for medically

    Unless you are B.R. we all know that the NHS has been in decline these past 14 years and it’s very worrying for those of pensionable age. (Not myself yet but I’ve seen the state of things.)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,565

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Doctor, yes.

    Doctor's entire family, no.
    Damn these foreigners and their insane desire to live with their families!
    Of course they want to. It is the UK's immigration rules that allow them to do so.

    If visas were issued to the individual only, then of course it would put some people off from applying, but would result in a smaller total number, those coming would tend to be younger, therefore with a longer working life ahead of them.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017

    Heathener said:

    It’s a strange time politically. The last time it felt like this was the run up to the 1997 election.

    It’s going to be a sea-change election and almost everyone knows that, so we’re just 'ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.'

    'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'

    I don’t think this is like 1997 tbh. The country may be sick of the Tories again, but the background is different. The tragedy is that Starmer and co are treating it like it is 1997, when in my view there’s much more appetite for radical change.
    Is there ? Where is that coming from. Cannot say I have noticed it.

    What is this so called radical change you see people clamouring for ?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,335
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm not sure that private ownership is Intrinsically wrong- other countries make it work, and it's good to separate poacher and gamekeeper.

    What's definitely a disaster is the sort of cheat sheet capitalism that the racier sorts of private equity do. Extracting shedloads of cash by financial rather than water engineering. The trouble for the rest of us is that the money extracted has long gone.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241
    edited March 28
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Anyway I’m off for a looooong weekend in London which I haven’t done for many years. All sorts of events lined up, from footy matches to art galleries, gardens to historic houses, and culminating* in the wonderful Asmik Grigorian singing the title role in Madama Butterfly at ROH.

    * Hoping to goodness she isn’t indisposed which happened to me for Darcey Bussell’s swansong ROH appearance.

    p.s. I’m such a socialist :D

    ROH ?

    Ring of Honour ?

    I didn't know she was a wrestler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Honor
    Sorry.

    Royal Opera House, Covent Garden.

    xx
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,898
    Taz said:
    Two of my pensions have gone up a bit, but so has my income tax! I think I’m going to be a little bit better off but not much.
    And any increase will be eaten up, or drunk up, by the expected increase in wine prices!
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,150

    UK still in recession according to the ONS.... also I heard yesterday that the first three months had record breaking boats crossing.

    That is it... the tories are dog meat. And I guess with that the fantasy that something good might turn up by waiting is totally bunk.

    Just have a GE already!!!!

    Last night's developments were instructive. Sunak is now accepting his fate - which is that they will come for him the weekend after the locals. We then get a choice of viewing:
    Sunak calls an election in June - "the country must make its choice"
    Sunak is ousted, and the new leader wants a good 6 months to get their "new" program going
    Sunak "wins" but in the circumstances there is no win. A September election if he's lucky, July or August if he's not.

    The question of when the election be is a question of how long the government can survive. I don't think the choice of date is in his gift any more.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Anyway I’m off for a looooong weekend in London which I haven’t done for many years. All sorts of events lined up, from footy matches to art galleries, gardens to historic houses, and culminating* in the wonderful Asmik Grigorian singing the title role in Madama Butterfly at ROH.

    * Hoping to goodness she isn’t indisposed which happened to me for Darcey Bussell’s swansong ROH appearance.

    p.s. I’m such a socialist :D

    ROH ?

    Ring of Honour ?

    I didn't know she was a wrestler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Honor
    Sorry.

    Royal Opera House, Covent Garden.

    xx
    Ah right, it is said Opera is pro-wrestling for posh people. So not that different then :wink:
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    Heathener said:

    Taz said:
    Last point before I travel but I think we may underestimate the importance of the NHS to pensioners.

    It’s all very well giving a few quid back but what really vexes many OAPs is whether or not they are going to be cared for medically

    Unless you are B.R. we all know that the NHS has been in decline these past 14 years and it’s very worrying for those of pensionable age. (Not myself yet but I’ve seen the state of things.)
    Yet rNHS now consumes 11.3% of our GDP (@afneil on Twitter) and has never employed more people. For something supposedly in decline and that decline is clearly pinpointed back to the date of the 2010 election it seems throwing money and people at it is not the solution.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm willing to bet they will go the way the water companies want them to though.

    Regulators like this covering large monopoly providers are ultimately clients of the companies they are meant to be regulating. They don't care about consumers any more than the companies do.

    Ofgem are a particularly egregious example but I've seen no evidence Ofwat are better.
    This is really a matter for government.

    If Ofwat agree this bailout, they're effectively imposing a tax increase of Thames customers - the proceeds if which will largely go to overseas shareholders.

    That is completely unacceptable.

    Ofwat already acquiesced in the plundering of the company after it was privatised. To do so again would be criminal.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,829

    The question of when the election be is a question of how long the government can survive. I don't think the choice of date is in his gift any more.

    He should have picked 2nd May...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,191

    In you couldn't make it up news.

    Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser rebuked for breaking lobbying rule

    Lord Geidt breached parliamentary rules by helping a US satellite firm influence MoD officials, the Lords standards commissioner has found


    Boris Johnson’s former ethics adviser has apologised for breaching House of Lords rules by helping a US company influence Ministry of Defence officials.

    Parliament’s standards watchdog said that Lord Geidt gave introductory remarks at a meeting in May 2021 between MoD officials and Theia Group.

    At the time, he was employed as an adviser by the company, which specialises in satellites and aerospace. He was also the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, having been appointed by Johnson the previous month.

    Geidt’s actions broke a ban on peers providing “parliamentary services” in return for payment, the Lords standards commissioner found after a three-month investigation.

    The crossbench peer’s presence at the meeting counted as “assisting an outside organisation in influencing officials”, according to a report released by the commissioner on Tuesday.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ethics-adviser-geidt-lobbying-rule-bk62gbqh9

    I doubt he was chosen by the clown for his superlative ethics and morality in the first place?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236
    Of course the current PM has a great deal of sympathy for private equity.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,335
    Scott_xP said:

    The question of when the election be is a question of how long the government can survive. I don't think the choice of date is in his gift any more.

    He should have picked 2nd May...
    He should have, but I understand why he didn't.

    (When was the optimal time for an election, if by optimal you mean 'leaving the Conservatives in the best state to recover'? I'd go for May 2023, after six months of assertive calm.)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,215
    Nigelb said:

    Of course the current PM has a great deal of sympathy for private equity.

    This is all Gordon Brown's fault.

    He should have let Northern Rock and RBS go to the wall.

    Some people need a harsh lesson in capitalism, companies go mammary glands up, the government shouldn't bail them out.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,150
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    It’s a strange time politically. The last time it felt like this was the run up to the 1997 election.

    It’s going to be a sea-change election and almost everyone knows that, so we’re just 'ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.'

    'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'

    I don’t think this is like 1997 tbh. The country may be sick of the Tories again, but the background is different. The tragedy is that Starmer and co are treating it like it is 1997, when in my view there’s much more appetite for radical change.
    Is there ? Where is that coming from. Cannot say I have noticed it.

    What is this so called radical change you see people clamouring for ?
    Plenty of radical change agendas you are choosing to ignore:
    1) Trussism - radical rework of tax policy and money distribution to make it easier for the capitalists
    2) Faragism - shut the border, migrants out, protectionism
    3) Corbynism - more tax, more spending, massive investment

    And that ignores the majority of the populace who think it would be a radical idea to go back to square one where we didn't pay massive water bills to swim in our own shit, the trains worked, you could see a doctor, they could work and afford to live, towns not visibly crumbling around them despite record taxes etc etc

    I do give you credit for your "crisis, what crisis?" consistency. Must be lonely out there.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,215
    IanB2 said:

    In you couldn't make it up news.

    Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser rebuked for breaking lobbying rule

    Lord Geidt breached parliamentary rules by helping a US satellite firm influence MoD officials, the Lords standards commissioner has found


    Boris Johnson’s former ethics adviser has apologised for breaching House of Lords rules by helping a US company influence Ministry of Defence officials.

    Parliament’s standards watchdog said that Lord Geidt gave introductory remarks at a meeting in May 2021 between MoD officials and Theia Group.

    At the time, he was employed as an adviser by the company, which specialises in satellites and aerospace. He was also the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, having been appointed by Johnson the previous month.

    Geidt’s actions broke a ban on peers providing “parliamentary services” in return for payment, the Lords standards commissioner found after a three-month investigation.

    The crossbench peer’s presence at the meeting counted as “assisting an outside organisation in influencing officials”, according to a report released by the commissioner on Tuesday.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-ethics-adviser-geidt-lobbying-rule-bk62gbqh9

    I doubt he was chosen by the clown for his superlative ethics and morality in the first place?
    Probably recommended by his unindicted co-conspirator in the unlawful prorogation scandal.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 766
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    The question the regulator should be asking is what bill change would be needed excluding what is needed to meet legacy debt interest payments.

    The choice of capital structure of the water company should be independent to bill levels. If the shareholders and bondholders chose a too highly leveraged structure, wipe out shareholders, junior bondholders and, if necessary, senior bondholders, until the capital structure is viable again.

    No need to do anything for this really - just keep bills where they are and wait for the defaults to occur and administrators to be appointed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm willing to bet they will go the way the water companies want them to though.

    Regulators like this covering large monopoly providers are ultimately clients of the companies they are meant to be regulating. They don't care about consumers any more than the companies do.

    Ofgem are a particularly egregious example but I've seen no evidence Ofwat are better.
    This is really a matter for government.

    If Ofwat agree this bailout, they're effectively imposing a tax increase of Thames customers - the proceeds if which will largely go to overseas shareholders.

    That is completely unacceptable.

    Ofwat already acquiesced in the plundering of the company after it was privatised. To do so again would be criminal.
    Yes, but when's that ever stopped them?

    Just as it would be say, bordering on criminal for a former chief executive of Ofwat to join Thames Water, but that didn't stop her.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm willing to bet they will go the way the water companies want them to though.

    Regulators like this covering large monopoly providers are ultimately clients of the companies they are meant to be regulating. They don't care about consumers any more than the companies do.

    Ofgem are a particularly egregious example but I've seen no evidence Ofwat are better.
    This is really a matter for government.

    If Ofwat agree this bailout, they're effectively imposing a tax increase of Thames customers - the proceeds if which will largely go to overseas shareholders.

    That is completely unacceptable.

    Ofwat already acquiesced in the plundering of the company after it was privatised. To do so again would be criminal.
    Regulatory capture. OFWAT, like most regulators, seem more interested in propping up the businesses they are supposed to regulate rather than looking out for the consumer. It is a revolving door between these businesses and regulators too. It all stink.

    Shareholders and bondholder take a risk. Let them lose the lot and a new company comes out of it. They have milked it in the good days, let them take the loss. Screw them,
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    edited March 28

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm not sure that private ownership is Intrinsically wrong- other countries make it work, and it's good to separate poacher and gamekeeper.

    What's definitely a disaster is the sort of cheat sheet capitalism that the racier sorts of private equity do. Extracting shedloads of cash by financial rather than water engineering. The trouble for the rest of us is that the money extracted has long gone.
    One of the problems facing advocates of nationalisation of water companies is that there is still one publicly owned water company in the UK.

    And it is by some distance the worst performing of them on all these metrics.

    One problem for those of us advocating mutualisation for water companies is that Dŵr Cymru is scarcely better than the privatised ones.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    Angela Rayner on GMB being interviewed by Richard Madeley and Susannah Reid coming over as evasive and shifty on the issue of her alleged dodging of CGT on her home sale.

    This should be such an easy thing to shut down. I think most people, myself included, will think if there was an error it was inadvertent and it was trivial yet most of the interview is taken up with the house sale issue and she is not able to get the message over about the launch of labours local govt manifesto.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm willing to bet they will go the way the water companies want them to though.

    Regulators like this covering large monopoly providers are ultimately clients of the companies they are meant to be regulating. They don't care about consumers any more than the companies do.

    Ofgem are a particularly egregious example but I've seen no evidence Ofwat are better.
    This is really a matter for government.

    If Ofwat agree this bailout, they're effectively imposing a tax increase of Thames customers - the proceeds if which will largely go to overseas shareholders.

    That is completely unacceptable.

    Ofwat already acquiesced in the plundering of the company after it was privatised. To do so again would be criminal.
    Regulatory capture. OFWAT, like most regulators, seem more interested in propping up the businesses they are supposed to regulate rather than looking out for the consumer. It is a revolving door between these businesses and regulators too. It all stink.

    Shareholders and bondholder take a risk. Let them lose the lot and a new company comes out of it. They have milked it in the good days, let them take the loss. Screw them,
    They're full of shit.

    And as a result so are our rivers.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,200
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    It’s a strange time politically. The last time it felt like this was the run up to the 1997 election.

    It’s going to be a sea-change election and almost everyone knows that, so we’re just 'ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.'

    'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'

    I don’t think this is like 1997 tbh. The country may be sick of the Tories again, but the background is different. The tragedy is that Starmer and co are treating it like it is 1997, when in my view there’s much more appetite for radical change.
    Is there ? Where is that coming from. Cannot say I have noticed it.

    What is this so called radical change you see people clamouring for ?
    There needs to be some rebalancing of this country’s wealth. Anyone under the age of 45 has basically been shafted their whole life.

    We need a modern Parliamentary system that is better suited to making tough choices. Fptp has failed.

    We need a closer relationship with Europe to stimulate trade and redress the damage of Brexit.

    And taxation needs root and branch reform. Corporate and Individual.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,482

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Doctor, yes.

    Doctor's entire family, no.
    Damn these foreigners and their insane desire to live with their families!
    Of course they want to. It is the UK's immigration rules that allow them to do so.

    If visas were issued to the individual only, then of course it would put some people off from applying, but would result in a smaller total number, those coming would tend to be younger, therefore with a longer working life ahead of them.
    When we were in the EU, that was the case. I don't recall any of our EU juniors bringing family.

    Since Brexit we recruit from Egypt, Nigeria and India where people marry and have families younger, and bring them over.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,482
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Taz said:
    Last point before I travel but I think we may underestimate the importance of the NHS to pensioners.

    It’s all very well giving a few quid back but what really vexes many OAPs is whether or not they are going to be cared for medically

    Unless you are B.R. we all know that the NHS has been in decline these past 14 years and it’s very worrying for those of pensionable age. (Not myself yet but I’ve seen the state of things.)
    Yet rNHS now consumes 11.3% of our GDP (@afneil on Twitter) and has never employed more people. For something supposedly in decline and that decline is clearly pinpointed back to the date of the 2010 election it seems throwing money and people at it is not the solution.
    Yes, the Tories have managed it stupendously badly. Poor productivity abounds.

    These clowns couldn't manage a whelk stall.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,711
    If

    Nigelb said:

    Of course the current PM has a great deal of sympathy for private equity.

    This is all Gordon Brown's fault.

    He should have let Northern Rock and RBS go to the wall.

    Some people need a harsh lesson in capitalism, companies go mammary glands up, the government shouldn't bail them out.
    If the government hadn’t bailed out the banks it would have been catastrophic for the economy. The public would have panicked pulling their savings meaning more banks would go to the wall. Lending to businesses and mortgages would have gone into meltdown .

    Gordon Brown is much maligned but did the right thing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm not sure that private ownership is Intrinsically wrong- other countries make it work, and it's good to separate poacher and gamekeeper.

    What's definitely a disaster is the sort of cheat sheet capitalism that the racier sorts of private equity do. Extracting shedloads of cash by financial rather than water engineering. The trouble for the rest of us is that the money extracted has long gone.
    That's what we have, though.

    We make it laughably easy for foreign money to buy up boring utilities with a long term, predictable revenue stream, load it with debt, and rape the company.

    Debt gives them the potential for two bites of the cherry. While the company is still relatively sound, they can lend to it themselves.
    And they can (as Macquarie did), pay themselves healthy dividends while they run it.

    When there's a period of low interest rates, refinance with a load more debt, and get out.

    At least if government owns the utility and rips off the customers, the money stays in our economy. And they can be made to pay an electoral price.

    Macquarie are entirely beyond any kind of reckoning.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    edited March 28
    nico679 said:

    If

    Nigelb said:

    Of course the current PM has a great deal of sympathy for private equity.

    This is all Gordon Brown's fault.

    He should have let Northern Rock and RBS go to the wall.

    Some people need a harsh lesson in capitalism, companies go mammary glands up, the government shouldn't bail them out.
    If the government hadn’t bailed out the banks it would have been catastrophic for the economy. The public would have panicked pulling their savings meaning more banks would go to the wall. Lending to businesses and mortgages would have gone into meltdown .

    Gordon Brown is much maligned but did the right thing.
    That's true of RBS. I am less sure it was true of Northern Rock. That was small and not crucial to the economy, and could have failed in a controlled and contained way. That might also have led others to get their houses in order sharpish and avoided some of the heart attacks the economy had the following year.

    As it was when a bank was finally let go, it was one of the larger ones with very serious consequences.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,482
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm not sure that private ownership is Intrinsically wrong- other countries make it work, and it's good to separate poacher and gamekeeper.

    What's definitely a disaster is the sort of cheat sheet capitalism that the racier sorts of private equity do. Extracting shedloads of cash by financial rather than water engineering. The trouble for the rest of us is that the money extracted has long gone.
    That's what we have, though.

    We make it laughably easy for foreign money to buy up boring utilities with a long term, predictable revenue stream, load it with debt, and rape the company.

    Debt gives them the potential for two bites of the cherry. While the company is still relatively sound, they can lend to it themselves.
    And they can (as Macquarie did), pay themselves healthy dividends while they run it.

    When there's a period of low interest rates, refinance with a load more debt, and get out.

    At least if government owns the utility and rips off the customers, the money stays in our economy. And they can be made to pay an electoral price.

    Macquarie are entirely beyond any kind of reckoning.
    It's not just utilities, that is the model of much of the economy. Gordon Gecko lives.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,335
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Doctor, yes.

    Doctor's entire family, no.
    Damn these foreigners and their insane desire to live with their families!
    Of course they want to. It is the UK's immigration rules that allow them to do so.

    If visas were issued to the individual only, then of course it would put some people off from applying, but would result in a smaller total number, those coming would tend to be younger, therefore with a longer working life ahead of them.
    When we were in the EU, that was the case. I don't recall any of our EU juniors bringing family.

    Since Brexit we recruit from Egypt, Nigeria and India where people marry and have families younger, and bring them over.
    Distance matters.

    A significant number of people were willing to treat working across Europe as a kind of commute, especially if it was commuting on a weekly basis. Not for me personally, but I can see how it works.

    If we're talking people moving from Africa or Asia, that doesn't really work. So of course people are more likely to see it as a permanent move and want to bring more (including family) with them.

    Nice work, if your plan was to cut immigration, nice work.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236
    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm willing to bet they will go the way the water companies want them to though.

    Regulators like this covering large monopoly providers are ultimately clients of the companies they are meant to be regulating. They don't care about consumers any more than the companies do.

    Ofgem are a particularly egregious example but I've seen no evidence Ofwat are better.
    This is really a matter for government.

    If Ofwat agree this bailout, they're effectively imposing a tax increase of Thames customers - the proceeds if which will largely go to overseas shareholders.

    That is completely unacceptable.

    Ofwat already acquiesced in the plundering of the company after it was privatised. To do so again would be criminal.
    Regulatory capture. OFWAT, like most regulators, seem more interested in propping up the businesses they are supposed to regulate rather than looking out for the consumer. It is a revolving door between these businesses and regulators too. It all stink.

    Shareholders and bondholder take a risk. Let them lose the lot and a new company comes out of it. They have milked it in the good days, let them take the loss. Screw them,
    The current owners didn't milk the company in the good days - which they are loudly proclaiming at the moment.
    But that doesn't mean we should bail them out.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236

    Nigelb said:

    Of course the current PM has a great deal of sympathy for private equity.

    This is all Gordon Brown's fault.

    He should have let Northern Rock and RBS go to the wall.

    Some people need a harsh lesson in capitalism, companies go mammary glands up, the government shouldn't bail them out.
    Two different things, I think ?
    Northern Rock was a fairly easy salvage job as it just needed an owner w its access to long term borrowing.

    RBS ought definitely have been allowed to fail.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,711
    ydoethur said:

    nico679 said:

    If

    Nigelb said:

    Of course the current PM has a great deal of sympathy for private equity.

    This is all Gordon Brown's fault.

    He should have let Northern Rock and RBS go to the wall.

    Some people need a harsh lesson in capitalism, companies go mammary glands up, the government shouldn't bail them out.
    If the government hadn’t bailed out the banks it would have been catastrophic for the economy. The public would have panicked pulling their savings meaning more banks would go to the wall. Lending to businesses and mortgages would have gone into meltdown .

    Gordon Brown is much maligned but did the right thing.
    That's true of RBS. I am less sure it was true of Northern Rock. That was small and not crucial to the economy, and could have failed in a controlled and contained way. That might also have led others to get their houses in order sharpish and avoided some of the heart attacks the economy had the following year.

    As it was when a bank was finally let go, it was one of the larger ones with very serious consequences.
    The public would have panicked . If the public lose faith in the banks protecting their money then it’s hard to stop a snowball effect .
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,236
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm not sure that private ownership is Intrinsically wrong- other countries make it work, and it's good to separate poacher and gamekeeper.

    What's definitely a disaster is the sort of cheat sheet capitalism that the racier sorts of private equity do. Extracting shedloads of cash by financial rather than water engineering. The trouble for the rest of us is that the money extracted has long gone.
    That's what we have, though.

    We make it laughably easy for foreign money to buy up boring utilities with a long term, predictable revenue stream, load it with debt, and rape the company.

    Debt gives them the potential for two bites of the cherry. While the company is still relatively sound, they can lend to it themselves.
    And they can (as Macquarie did), pay themselves healthy dividends while they run it.

    When there's a period of low interest rates, refinance with a load more debt, and get out.

    At least if government owns the utility and rips off the customers, the money stays in our economy. And they can be made to pay an electoral price.

    Macquarie are entirely beyond any kind of reckoning.
    It's not just utilities, that is the model of much of the economy. Gordon Gecko lives.
    Monopoly utilities are different, though.
  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 415
    edited March 28
    ToryJim said:

    Donkeys said:

    When was the most recent time that a LOTO became PM for the first time by winning a GE against a younger PM?

    AFAICT only three times in the past 100 years has a LOTO won a GE against a younger PM:

    1929 MacDonald beat Baldwin (10 months his junior)
    1951 Churchill beat Attlee (8 years his junior)
    1974 Wilson beat Heath (4 months his junior)

    - and all of these LOTOs had been PM before.

    Starmer is 18 years older than Sunak and 13 years older than Mordaunt.


    Two of those elections were hung Parliaments and the third saw the party with most seats winning fewer votes than the ‘losing’ party.

    In fact in every case the party with most seats got fewer votes than another party.
    When was the last time a non-ex-PM LOTO beat an age gap in a GE?

    We define "beat an age gap" as "become PM as a result of winning most seats, while being older than the PM he or she is running against".

    It hasn't happened since the introduction of universal adult suffrage. Has it ever happened at all?

    Starmer is 18y older than Sunak and 13y older than Mordaunt. He's never been a minister, let alone prime minister. And yet people think he's going to win a landslide.

    Smartarses beware: I know about XKCD cartoon 1122 from 2012 and vaguely recall there may have been a similar one in 2016.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,829
    Stop the Boats

    Record numbers crossing

    Grow the economy

    Economy in recession, smaller than when Richi took over.

    Hold on, lads, it's working...

    @lara_spirit
    Labour lead at 19 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times

    CON 21 (+2)
    LAB 40 (-4)
    LIB DEM 10 (+1)
    REF UK 16 (+1)
    GRN 8 (=)

    Fieldwork 26 - 27 March
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    It’s a strange time politically. The last time it felt like this was the run up to the 1997 election.

    It’s going to be a sea-change election and almost everyone knows that, so we’re just 'ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.'

    'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'

    I don’t think this is like 1997 tbh. The country may be sick of the Tories again, but the background is different. The tragedy is that Starmer and co are treating it like it is 1997, when in my view there’s much more appetite for radical change.
    Is there ? Where is that coming from. Cannot say I have noticed it.

    What is this so called radical change you see people clamouring for ?
    There needs to be some rebalancing of this country’s wealth. Anyone under the age of 45 has basically been shafted their whole life.

    We need a modern Parliamentary system that is better suited to making tough choices. Fptp has failed.

    We need a closer relationship with Europe to stimulate trade and redress the damage of Brexit.

    And taxation needs root and branch reform. Corporate and Individual.
    Doesn't really answer my question where this demand is coming from. That seems to be your wish list, which is fine, but there hardly seems to be people out on the streets demanding this.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,829
    @lara_spirit

    This is Reform's largest vote share so far

    North: Tories 18, Reform 21
    Midlands: Tories 21, Reform 21
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    Donkeys said:

    ToryJim said:

    Donkeys said:

    When was the most recent time that a LOTO became PM for the first time by winning a GE against a younger PM?

    AFAICT only three times in the past 100 years has a LOTO won a GE against a younger PM:

    1929 MacDonald beat Baldwin (10 months his junior)
    1951 Churchill beat Attlee (8 years his junior)
    1974 Wilson beat Heath (4 months his junior)

    - and all of these LOTOs had been PM before.

    Starmer is 18 years older than Sunak and 13 years older than Mordaunt.


    Two of those elections were hung Parliaments and the third saw the party with most seats winning fewer votes than the ‘losing’ party.

    In fact in every case the party with most seats got fewer votes than another party.
    When was the last time a non-ex-PM LOTO beat an age gap in a GE?

    We define "beat an age gap" as "become PM as a result of winning most seats, while being older than the PM he or she is running against".

    It hasn't happened since the introduction of universal adult suffrage. Has it ever happened at all?

    Starmer is 18y older than Sunak and 13y older than Mordaunt.

    Smartarses beware: I know about XKCD cartoon 1122 from 2012 and vaguely recall there may have been a similar one in 2016.
    Does 1906 count? If not you are probably looking at 1852 and 1830. Before that 1808.
  • What's wrong with legal migration?

    If people meet the criteria we set, pay their taxes, don't get public funds then what's the problem with them coming here?

    So long as we construct enough homes and other infrastructure investment to cope with population changes. The public infrastructure should come from those aforementioned taxes.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,783

    UK still in recession according to the ONS.... also I heard yesterday that the first three months had record breaking boats crossing.

    That is it... the tories are dog meat. And I guess with that the fantasy that something good might turn up by waiting is totally bunk.

    Just have a GE already!!!!

    Last night's developments were instructive. Sunak is now accepting his fate - which is that they will come for him the weekend after the locals. We then get a choice of viewing:
    Sunak calls an election in June - "the country must make its choice"
    Sunak is ousted, and the new leader wants a good 6 months to get their "new" program going
    Sunak "wins" but in the circumstances there is no win. A September election if he's lucky, July or August if he's not.

    The question of when the election be is a question of how long the government can survive. I don't think the choice of date is in his gift any more.
    Well, we called it. Rishi should have gone for 2nd May. We said he'd regret delaying it....
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    nico679 said:

    If

    Nigelb said:

    Of course the current PM has a great deal of sympathy for private equity.

    This is all Gordon Brown's fault.

    He should have let Northern Rock and RBS go to the wall.

    Some people need a harsh lesson in capitalism, companies go mammary glands up, the government shouldn't bail them out.
    If the government hadn’t bailed out the banks it would have been catastrophic for the economy. The public would have panicked pulling their savings meaning more banks would go to the wall. Lending to businesses and mortgages would have gone into meltdown .

    Gordon Brown is much maligned but did the right thing.
    I am sure Lloyds shareholders, to this day, appreciate the forced marriage between their business and HBOS.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,348

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    It’s a strange time politically. The last time it felt like this was the run up to the 1997 election.

    It’s going to be a sea-change election and almost everyone knows that, so we’re just 'ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.'

    'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'

    I don’t think this is like 1997 tbh. The country may be sick of the Tories again, but the background is different. The tragedy is that Starmer and co are treating it like it is 1997, when in my view there’s much more appetite for radical change.
    Is there ? Where is that coming from. Cannot say I have noticed it.

    What is this so called radical change you see people clamouring for ?
    Plenty of radical change agendas you are choosing to ignore:
    1) Trussism - radical rework of tax policy and money distribution to make it easier for the capitalists
    2) Faragism - shut the border, migrants out, protectionism
    3) Corbynism - more tax, more spending, massive investment

    And that ignores the majority of the populace who think it would be a radical idea to go back to square one where we didn't pay massive water bills to swim in our own shit, the trains worked, you could see a doctor, they could work and afford to live, towns not visibly crumbling around them despite record taxes etc etc

    I do give you credit for your "crisis, what crisis?" consistency. Must be lonely out there.
    You make a good point. I don't inow whether those three constituemcies, plus the eco-radicals, plus other assorted rag, tag and bobtails, add up to a majority. But even if they did it would be hard to see them working together. So even if there is an appetite for radical change, the problem is there's no consensus on what sort of radical change is wanted.

    I actually think the approach the 2019 Conservatives purported to offer was a) moderately radical and b) moderately popular. (Less radical than the alternative, but more popular. And more popular than the unradical Conservatism of 2010 and 2015.) But the ideas were nebulous, there were relatively few in the party sincere about it - certainly not enough to overcome the inherent small c conservatism of the machinery of government, and in any case they were blindsided by covid and so impoverished the national coffers in the way they dealt with that that the best they could subsequently hope for was just-about-managing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    Scott_xP said:

    @lara_spirit

    This is Reform's largest vote share so far

    North: Tories 18, Reform 21
    Midlands: Tories 21, Reform 21

    But it isn't going to Labour....
  • RattersRatters Posts: 766
    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm willing to bet they will go the way the water companies want them to though.

    Regulators like this covering large monopoly providers are ultimately clients of the companies they are meant to be regulating. They don't care about consumers any more than the companies do.

    Ofgem are a particularly egregious example but I've seen no evidence Ofwat are better.
    This is really a matter for government.

    If Ofwat agree this bailout, they're effectively imposing a tax increase of Thames customers - the proceeds if which will largely go to overseas shareholders.

    That is completely unacceptable.

    Ofwat already acquiesced in the plundering of the company after it was privatised. To do so again would be criminal.
    Regulatory capture. OFWAT, like most regulators, seem more interested in propping up the businesses they are supposed to regulate rather than looking out for the consumer. It is a revolving door between these businesses and regulators too. It all stink.

    Shareholders and bondholder take a risk. Let them lose the lot and a new company comes out of it. They have milked it in the good days, let them take the loss. Screw them,
    The current owners didn't milk the company in the good days - which they are loudly proclaiming at the moment.
    But that doesn't mean we should bail them out.
    The current owners made a poor investment. These things happen. Maybe they also bought some Tesla or Nvidia shares and doubled their money there. Or maybe they need to review who runs their investment team.

    I feel this is one topic where the economic right (insofar as believing in free markets, reward and failure) and the economic left (should have stayed nationalised) agree with the principle that current owners and debtors should take the hit for their mistakes, not bill payers.
  • Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm willing to bet they will go the way the water companies want them to though.

    Regulators like this covering large monopoly providers are ultimately clients of the companies they are meant to be regulating. They don't care about consumers any more than the companies do.

    Ofgem are a particularly egregious example but I've seen no evidence Ofwat are better.
    This is really a matter for government.

    If Ofwat agree this bailout, they're effectively imposing a tax increase of Thames customers - the proceeds if which will largely go to overseas shareholders.

    That is completely unacceptable.

    Ofwat already acquiesced in the plundering of the company after it was privatised. To do so again would be criminal.
    Regulatory capture. OFWAT, like most regulators, seem more interested in propping up the businesses they are supposed to regulate rather than looking out for the consumer. It is a revolving door between these businesses and regulators too. It all stink.

    Shareholders and bondholder take a risk. Let them lose the lot and a new company comes out of it. They have milked it in the good days, let them take the loss. Screw them,
    The current owners didn't milk the company in the good days - which they are loudly proclaiming at the moment.
    But that doesn't mean we should bail them out.
    All investments can go down as well as up.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,134
    gonatas said:

    Good morning.
    Here is the nub of the issue. What sort of immigration is unpopular?
    Arguably it is the "illegal" sort - but how is this defined and how is it counted?
    It is far too easy to look at ever increasing gross numbers and project those onto the segment of immigrants we don't like.
    Anyway good news for the Tories in the figures quoted. Only 2% of those polled generally don't like the Government so 98% up for grabs.

    "Immigration" is unpopular. "Illegal" is the "I'm not a racist" shield.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,783
    Scott_xP said:

    Stop the Boats

    Record numbers crossing

    Grow the economy

    Economy in recession, smaller than when Richi took over.

    Hold on, lads, it's working...

    @lara_spirit
    Labour lead at 19 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times

    CON 21 (+2)
    LAB 40 (-4)
    LIB DEM 10 (+1)
    REF UK 16 (+1)
    GRN 8 (=)

    Fieldwork 26 - 27 March

    Still don't think REFORM will poll anything like 16% on the day.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm willing to bet they will go the way the water companies want them to though.

    Regulators like this covering large monopoly providers are ultimately clients of the companies they are meant to be regulating. They don't care about consumers any more than the companies do.

    Ofgem are a particularly egregious example but I've seen no evidence Ofwat are better.
    This is really a matter for government.

    If Ofwat agree this bailout, they're effectively imposing a tax increase of Thames customers - the proceeds if which will largely go to overseas shareholders.

    That is completely unacceptable.

    Ofwat already acquiesced in the plundering of the company after it was privatised. To do so again would be criminal.
    Regulatory capture. OFWAT, like most regulators, seem more interested in propping up the businesses they are supposed to regulate rather than looking out for the consumer. It is a revolving door between these businesses and regulators too. It all stink.

    Shareholders and bondholder take a risk. Let them lose the lot and a new company comes out of it. They have milked it in the good days, let them take the loss. Screw them,
    The current owners didn't milk the company in the good days - which they are loudly proclaiming at the moment.
    But that doesn't mean we should bail them out.
    Okay, but somebody did milk it. The current owners will have to take the hit. We should not bail them out. We should let the business fail and a new business emerge.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,167

    First.

    And for a bit of hilarity, I woke up this morning to see the following twitter post:

    "I fully acknowledge that I’m a moron but I still don’t understand how a bridge comes down and now the harbor is closed for months. The harbor didn’t come down. The bridge did. Do the ships need to sail under a bridge to function?"

    On a note of sanity, Admiral "Mad" Jack Fisher opposed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosyth_Dockyard on the grounds that if the Forth Bridge came down, it could trap a fleet there.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 948
    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    So, let them go bust, sell the assets to someone else. Wipe out the private equity fools who got them into this mess. How is any of this a problem?

    If you can't sell the assets to anyone because the bills don't cover the costs of providing the service, then the bills are going to need to rise, but that's a rather different issue.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,150
    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Stop the Boats

    Record numbers crossing

    Grow the economy

    Economy in recession, smaller than when Richi took over.

    Hold on, lads, it's working...

    @lara_spirit
    Labour lead at 19 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times

    CON 21 (+2)
    LAB 40 (-4)
    LIB DEM 10 (+1)
    REF UK 16 (+1)
    GRN 8 (=)

    Fieldwork 26 - 27 March

    Still don't think REFORM will poll anything like 16% on the day.
    Perhaps not. But we all need to move past the notion that ReFUK voters are actually just Tory voters and they will go home.

    They're not. They won't.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,482
    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is the big news today.

    Thames Water’s shareholders refuse to inject new funds
    Investors say regulatory conditions make the utility’s business plan ‘uninvestible’
    https://www.ft.com/content/be156e80-e583-4ebf-9492-bc6bdb5bf1be

    The company is uninvestable, because without bill payers being forced to pay for private equity's mistakes, the company will be insolvent within 18 months.

    And there is no justifiable reason to make bill payers do so.

    I remain baffled that anyone was crazy enough to buy shares in a company that has not paid dividends for seven years.

    And especially that pension fund managers did - and not just small shareholdings but colossal stakes.

    That's really quite disturbing.
    It is.
    Fortunately for good policy making, the large majority of the shareholders are overseas.

    But the bottom line is that this is a perfect demonstration of why public utility monopolies, with businesses whose nature will never change, should not be owned by private investors.

    OFWAT should ignore the incoming intense lobbying from the company, shareholders and bondholders - who are already saying that a 40% bill increase is insufficient.
    I'm willing to bet they will go the way the water companies want them to though.

    Regulators like this covering large monopoly providers are ultimately clients of the companies they are meant to be regulating. They don't care about consumers any more than the companies do.

    Ofgem are a particularly egregious example but I've seen no evidence Ofwat are better.
    This is really a matter for government.

    If Ofwat agree this bailout, they're effectively imposing a tax increase of Thames customers - the proceeds if which will largely go to overseas shareholders.

    That is completely unacceptable.

    Ofwat already acquiesced in the plundering of the company after it was privatised. To do so again would be criminal.
    Regulatory capture. OFWAT, like most regulators, seem more interested in propping up the businesses they are supposed to regulate rather than looking out for the consumer. It is a revolving door between these businesses and regulators too. It all stink.

    Shareholders and bondholder take a risk. Let them lose the lot and a new company comes out of it. They have milked it in the good days, let them take the loss. Screw them,
    The current owners didn't milk the company in the good days - which they are loudly proclaiming at the moment.
    But that doesn't mean we should bail them out.
    Okay, but somebody did milk it. The current owners will have to take the hit. We should not bail them out. We should let the business fail and a new business emerge.

    Looks like the current owners did not do due diligence on the people they were buying from then.

    Hard cheese.
Sign In or Register to comment.