Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

I’m a leftist who didn’t vote Labour; why am I happy with the election results?

SystemSystem Posts: 11,917
edited July 13 in General
imageI’m a leftist who didn’t vote Labour; why am I happy with the election results?– politicalbetting.com

As the title says, and many here will have gathered from my posts, I am left wing and not in the Labour Party. So you may expect me to be annoyed that Labour have got a massive majority to do with what they wish. And, to some extent, I am. But, when it comes to the actual results of the election and staying up on election night, I was and still am pretty happy – and so were a lot of other people who are on the left and not fans of Starmer’s Labour. But why?

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,146
    fpt ... @Luckyguy1983

    Apologies, Lucky. I did indeed misunderstand.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    Third, like so many Tories
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 20,483
    edited July 10
    Nigel is not a Prisoner; he is Number SIX.

    Or number 5.

    And I'm Number 4.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,489
    edited July 10
    Well done! Excellent header.

    (PS Why '148grss'? It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue)
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 20,483
    FPT:

    It is quite funny how people are saying Farage won't be able to get much speaking time eg at PMQs.

    How many UK people sat and watched the big events in the European Volkskammer Parliament?

    Virtually none. People only knew about Farages speeches because he uploaded and distributed them.

    There are a million and one half attended debates in Parliament where Farage will be able to speak as much as he likes and upload / distribute.

    Hoyle must not indulge Farage. He has to be told to stfu when he’s showboating.
    And then Farage will just play the victim. And the people who follow him will believe him. Coz cult, and all that...
    Is there a league table for PMQ? If not, there should be.

    Presumably the leader of the Famous Five will get one question a term or so to reflect his importance, and then it will be down to tickets in a hat.

    Since there are only 15 organisations questions per week, that's something under 500 per annum or one and a bit per backbench MP, then it is down to the bunny hopping.

    But my MP Mr Anderson seems to appear a lot more than that.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,460
    Phil said:



    Without wanting to be a “Letby Truther” .

    Her Facebook fan group ('Let's Be Friends') is a great source of dank lols but it keeps getting banned.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,476
    Just so long as rythmically it's left, left, left, left, left. Eh.....
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,460
    I don't normally care for these lengthy headers that try to lead one to gnosis via the medium of graphs but this was excellent. GG, @148.
  • Options
    MisterBedfordshireMisterBedfordshire Posts: 1,762
    edited July 10
    FPT @Malmesbury said:

    Most HMO are not organised or registered. The tell tale, when you visit one, is the absence of the mandatory, specified, fire alarm system.

    In many blocks of flats, sold in London, it has become standard to have hefty locks on the bedroom doors, as built. With the keyholes discretely in the door handles themselves. Funny that.

    This is another issue with excessive/complex regulation.

    Comply and you end up with a good chance going bust and losing everything as you have to compete on price with those cheating.

    Cheat and you probably get away with it because many or most are cheating (see above) and you are unlikely to be caught as the council have to pay for so many bureaucrats to administer the various regulations and their index linked pensions, that short of the place burning down, they are unlikely to have the resources to enforce anything much.
  • Options
    madmacsmadmacs Posts: 91
    Excellent article. I am a Liberal environmentalist and would agree with the Greens on many environmental issues. As you explain the Greens in England and Wales are a socialist party - I suspect Jeremy Corbyn would find a new home easily within your ranks. As a past economist I found the economic policies in their manifesto in cloud cuckoo land. I suspect if they had come to pass we would, ironically, have the same results as the Liz Truss shambles.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    edited July 10
    The top graph is the interesting one.

    Normally, the losing party’s held majorities decrease, the winning party’s held majorities increase, and those seats of the losing party with small majorities flip to small majorities of the other side.

    This time, the second one of those simply didn’t happen, bunching up all the seats with small majorities.

    The outcome of the election was so certain, that non-Tory voters in Labour held seats could relax and vote however they liked. For a few seats this was for a left-leaning independent, in some it was for the LibDems, or more commonly the Greens. For many, it was for Reform, and I suspect that Farage’s pull in many Labour held seats is a big part of the explanation - which isn’t what the lead’s author, nor I, would welcome, because it tells us that Labour isn’t delivering the right policy stance for many of its supporters - but not because it is insufficiently left wing.

    For the author and the wider left, they only way they progress in these seats - without a change in voting system - is if the Tories stay flat on their backs and another big Labour win looks assured.
  • Options
    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    Secret arrests could mean publishers don’t know they are in contempt of court

    Law Commission considers moving point at which criminal proceedings are 'active' to charge rather than arrest.


    The Law Commission is seeking views on whether a case should be considered “active” from charge instead of arrest – potentially expanding the scope of what the media can report during a criminal investigation.

    Currently legal proceedings are considered active in criminal cases from the point of arrest. But because arrests are now treated as private, and therefore secret, it has become hard for publishers to know if their reporting is potentially risking contempt of court.

    The Commission noted media stakeholders said it has become harder to ascertain whether proceedings are active unless the journalists know through other sources who has been arrested, because police no longer share the identity of a suspect until they are charged.

    The News Media Association told the Commission that “often the media are unaware that an arrest has taken place and it can be difficult to verify this as this information is no longer routinely confirmed by police forces following ZXC”, a reference to a case against Bloomberg that reached the Supreme Court which ruled a person under criminal investigation should not be named before charge.

    The Commission said: “As a result, there is a chilling effect because the media cannot publish information about a person for fear that the person may be under arrest, but there is no way they can know with any certainty.

    “Additionally, it was explained to us that the bar for arrest can be very low, whereas the bar for charging presents a higher threshold, and a lot of arrests do not lead to charge.


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/secret-arrests-could-mean-publishers-dont-know-they-are-in-contempt-of-court/
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 2,122
    madmacs said:

    Excellent article. I am a Liberal environmentalist and would agree with the Greens on many environmental issues. As you explain the Greens in England and Wales are a socialist party - I suspect Jeremy Corbyn would find a new home easily within your ranks. As a past economist I found the economic policies in their manifesto in cloud cuckoo land. I suspect if they had come to pass we would, ironically, have the same results as the Liz Truss shambles.

    The problem with the Greens is that they say they are green, but when push comes to shove they oppose green infrastructure at every turn, even though we are (according to them) in a climate emergency.

    In reality, the Greens are an alliance between socialists & NIMBYs, who’s de-growth agenda & bias to localism leads to them opposing the actual Green transition we need to have.
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 2,122

    Secret arrests could mean publishers don’t know they are in contempt of court

    Law Commission considers moving point at which criminal proceedings are 'active' to charge rather than arrest.


    The Law Commission is seeking views on whether a case should be considered “active” from charge instead of arrest – potentially expanding the scope of what the media can report during a criminal investigation.

    Currently legal proceedings are considered active in criminal cases from the point of arrest. But because arrests are now treated as private, and therefore secret, it has become hard for publishers to know if their reporting is potentially risking contempt of court.

    The Commission noted media stakeholders said it has become harder to ascertain whether proceedings are active unless the journalists know through other sources who has been arrested, because police no longer share the identity of a suspect until they are charged.

    The News Media Association told the Commission that “often the media are unaware that an arrest has taken place and it can be difficult to verify this as this information is no longer routinely confirmed by police forces following ZXC”, a reference to a case against Bloomberg that reached the Supreme Court which ruled a person under criminal investigation should not be named before charge.

    The Commission said: “As a result, there is a chilling effect because the media cannot publish information about a person for fear that the person may be under arrest, but there is no way they can know with any certainty.

    “Additionally, it was explained to us that the bar for arrest can be very low, whereas the bar for charging presents a higher threshold, and a lot of arrests do not lead to charge.


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/secret-arrests-could-mean-publishers-dont-know-they-are-in-contempt-of-court/

    This is just going to throw my thesis that the sub judice rules are not fit for purpose into sharp relief if they go through with it.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    edited July 10

    Secret arrests could mean publishers don’t know they are in contempt of court

    Law Commission considers moving point at which criminal proceedings are 'active' to charge rather than arrest.


    The Law Commission is seeking views on whether a case should be considered “active” from charge instead of arrest – potentially expanding the scope of what the media can report during a criminal investigation.

    Currently legal proceedings are considered active in criminal cases from the point of arrest. But because arrests are now treated as private, and therefore secret, it has become hard for publishers to know if their reporting is potentially risking contempt of court.

    The Commission noted media stakeholders said it has become harder to ascertain whether proceedings are active unless the journalists know through other sources who has been arrested, because police no longer share the identity of a suspect until they are charged.

    The News Media Association told the Commission that “often the media are unaware that an arrest has taken place and it can be difficult to verify this as this information is no longer routinely confirmed by police forces following ZXC”, a reference to a case against Bloomberg that reached the Supreme Court which ruled a person under criminal investigation should not be named before charge.

    The Commission said: “As a result, there is a chilling effect because the media cannot publish information about a person for fear that the person may be under arrest, but there is no way they can know with any certainty.

    “Additionally, it was explained to us that the bar for arrest can be very low, whereas the bar for charging presents a higher threshold, and a lot of arrests do not lead to charge.


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/secret-arrests-could-mean-publishers-dont-know-they-are-in-contempt-of-court/

    Er... how hard would it be to change the rule to "moving point at which criminal proceedings are 'active' to published arrest rather than charge"?

    PS, I assume you, and the Press Gazette, meant it this way round: moving to arrest rather than charge.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707
    Very interesting, especially with its implications for the Holyrood elections in 2026 where there are already two established parties to the left of Scottish Labour (at present, anyway) and when UKLab SKS style is distinctly to the right of Slab.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 20,483
    edited July 10

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    Perhaps Youlgreave is the model for the future?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youlgrave_Waterworks

    It's also allegedly one of the best little known wild swimming spots in Derbyshire:
    https://shegetsaround.co.uk/the-best-wild-swimming-spots-in-youlgreave-peak-district/

    I live about 40 minutes away and I didn't know; I thought the closest was Chatsworth or Slippery Stones.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,553

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    Given the amount of money for infrastructure that needs to be raised I suspect the best approach would be to nationalise it and then pass ownership to a new limited company owned by it's customers.

    A lot of the issue probably comes down to how the loans are going to be secured and the impact of any haircut on the existing loans...
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677
    How does the greenery of Brighton and Bristol (deffo to the left of Labour) mesh with the greenery of Herefordshire and Waveney Valley (rural preservation)?
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 20,483

    Secret arrests could mean publishers don’t know they are in contempt of court

    Law Commission considers moving point at which criminal proceedings are 'active' to charge rather than arrest.


    The Law Commission is seeking views on whether a case should be considered “active” from charge instead of arrest – potentially expanding the scope of what the media can report during a criminal investigation.

    Currently legal proceedings are considered active in criminal cases from the point of arrest. But because arrests are now treated as private, and therefore secret, it has become hard for publishers to know if their reporting is potentially risking contempt of court.

    The Commission noted media stakeholders said it has become harder to ascertain whether proceedings are active unless the journalists know through other sources who has been arrested, because police no longer share the identity of a suspect until they are charged.

    The News Media Association told the Commission that “often the media are unaware that an arrest has taken place and it can be difficult to verify this as this information is no longer routinely confirmed by police forces following ZXC”, a reference to a case against Bloomberg that reached the Supreme Court which ruled a person under criminal investigation should not be named before charge.

    The Commission said: “As a result, there is a chilling effect because the media cannot publish information about a person for fear that the person may be under arrest, but there is no way they can know with any certainty.

    “Additionally, it was explained to us that the bar for arrest can be very low, whereas the bar for charging presents a higher threshold, and a lot of arrests do not lead to charge.


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/secret-arrests-could-mean-publishers-dont-know-they-are-in-contempt-of-court/

    Er... how hard would it be to change the rule to "moving point at which criminal proceedings are 'active' to published arrest rather than charge"?

    PS, I assume you, and the Press Gazette, meant it this way round: moving to arrest rather than charge.
    It's an interesting contrast to the USA system, as shown in the Chump trials.

    They allow commentary throughout, but have a far more extensive Jury checking / challenge process - expecting jurors to be able to take more responsibility for their objectivity.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    edited July 10
    IanB2 said:

    The top graph is the interesting one.

    Normally, the losing party’s held majorities decrease, the winning party’s held majorities increase, and those seats of the losing party with small majorities flip to small majorities of the other side.

    This time, the second one of those simply didn’t happen, bunching up all the seats with small majorities.

    The outcome of the election was so certain, that non-Tory voters in Labour held seats could relax and vote however they liked. For a few seats this was for a left-leaning independent, in some it was for the LibDems, or more commonly the Greens. For many, it was for Reform, and I suspect that Farage’s pull in many Labour held seats is a big part of the explanation - which isn’t what the lead’s author, nor I, would welcome, because it tells us that Labour isn’t delivering the right policy stance for many of its supporters - but not because it is insufficiently left wing.

    For the author and the wider left, they only way they progress in these seats - without a change in voting system - is if the Tories stay flat on their backs and another big Labour win looks assured.

    Good comment and I largely agree. The highly focused LD vote, however, was clearly not due to 'non-Tory voters in Labour held seats could relax and vote however they liked'.

    It was surely due to disillusioned Tories and non-Tory voters in Tory held seats voting for the party they thought most likely to eject the Tory MP.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,819
    Well done 148grss.

    Greens have got a shot over Labour’s boughs

    Did you change bows to boughs as trees are more appropriate for a reference to Greens ?
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,767
    Last Thursday enough of us still voted the way we needed to in order to deny Sunak and Farage the keys to No 10, and ensure that the self-indulgence shown by the author and others did not get in the way of electing a government that is going to make a material difference to the lives of people who have so badly suffered over the last 14 years. You can't claim to be on the left when you act as though Starmer is the enemy. Get real instead of indulging in your Melanchonist fantasies.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,330
    Thanks for the threader @148grss .

    Looking at the provided link - https://greenparty.org.uk/2024/07/06/10-steps-labour-must-take-in-the-first-100-days-to-show-theyre-serious-about-real-change/ - I see that six of the ten things that the Greens want are nothing to do with environmental issues. And one of those: "Introduce a natural history GCSE" seems incredibly trivial.

    Regardless of the worthiness of those six items, I'd have expected a Green party to, you know, have more to say on green issues. Which reinforces my view that much of the Green party is just a greenwashing of a hard-left agenda.

    I'm also really doubtful that: "Labour (is) firmly positioning itself as a centre / right party." I think we'll see a fair amount which the left will quite like - although it may take some time for these to become apparent.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Roger said:

    DeclanF said:

    From @Phil (I think) on the previous thread re the Letby case -

    "The Guardian claims to have spoken to eight clinicians, seven of them specialising in neonatology who described Evans claims that an air embolism could be introduced in the way claimed during the trials as (I quote the article) nonsensical, “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical” in half the cases & the other half relied on a research paper that the /authors/ of that paper said was completely inapplicable.

    I am not an expert, but this seems ... concerning to me."

    If so, it is odd, isn't it, as @Algakirk has repeatedly pointed out, that none of these clinicians was willing to give evidence for the defence during the trial - assuming any of them were asked.

    Why not?

    Because they were not asked.

    It's difficult to see what point you are making. It's not like giving evidence at the trial would have been a sticking their head above the parapet thing to do. What makes you think saying things to the guardian is a markedly lower risk thing to do than saying things in court? It's much higher risk because if they were talking to the press prior to the latest judgment that leaves them exposed to contempt charges.
    I presume that when they're asked to be an expert witness, or were they to be asked, they start looking into the case in detail, as opposed to reacting to one thing presented out of context, and they come to conclusions that the defence don't want to use.
    I don't see any basis for any of those suppositions.
    The defence case were able to call expert witnesses. The defence case in their appeal, when they made these particular points about air embolisms, were able to call expert witnesses. They never did. Even when they were talking about a topic where an expert witness would be useful.

    Either they are the most incompetent defence lawyers in the history of lawyering, or they couldn't find any expert witnesses
    whose testimony they wanted to put in front of the court.
    And those arguments don't apply to the subpostmasters because...?
    Many of the sub-postermasters were brow-beaten into pleading guilty rather than fighting. When they fought in an organised manner they won.

    Most importantly they were not able to challenge the claim that the IT system was right without paying for a full audit themselves
    I remember a dinner table conversation with a very emminent barrister (a family friend) who said in his experience he never came across anyone who pleaded guilty who wasn't. I don't know whether or not he was correct but what he said has crossed my mind many times over the last twenty years since he said it.
    Roger, I'm speaking to you as your lawyer. The evidence from the computer system appears watertight. Yes, you say it is wrong, but we have no way of proving that. And what does the Post Office have to gain by lying? If you go to trial, you will spend 8, maybe 10, years in prison. If you plead guilty, you can be out in 18 months. That's the difference between missing one of your kids birthdays and missing their entire childhood. Do the right thing for your kid, plead guilty and put this behind you.
    Roger's propensity to take as gospel the dinner party conversation of those prone to MRD syndrome, is impressive.

    Though he might be subtly commenting on how wrong the guy was in his certainty ?
    I described the comment to my father, who taught philosophy as his career.

    He described it as a magnificent example of why philosophical logic was important in real life. An example of a statement that imparts a very different truth to the one the speaker intended.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    rcs1000 said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    I don't understand this comment.

    Firstly, if it wanted to - and it would be entirely stupid to do so - HMG could pay £100bn for Thames Water. The UK has a good credit rating. It can print money. It could pay 50x the "right" price and buy it, if it wanted to.

    Secondly, the most likely scenario where HMG takes ownership of Thames Water is where it misses an interest payment. At which point, the administrators are called, the shareholders are wiped out, and the bondholders accept - say - 50 cents on the dollar. Thames Water, pre interest payments, is highly profitable. It is just massively over-leveraged. Which is shit for the people who lent money to it. But... so what? The shareholders lose everything, the bond holders lose half their money... and water continues to flow.
    Until this is resolved it's just going to be drip, drip, drip... isn't it?
  • Options
    pm215pm215 Posts: 1,027

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    But what would be the benefit to the customer of owning a share in a company whose income all comes from the customers themselves and whose outgoings are, as you note, going to have to be large?

    When this kind of model is proposed it always has a feel to me of playing accounting games. If the government is effectively borrowing or paying for something, we shouldn't engage in financial contortions purely to keep sums off the official "government borrowing" or "government expenditure" totals -- what does it achieve in reality? And if there's a long term investment case where putting in capital now will achieve a return in the longer term such that private investers might stump up some cash, shouldn't the government (whose borrowing costs are probably lower) be in favour of making that investment itself?

    As you say, the requirement for capital costs hasn't gone away -- where will the money come from? The government could tax the general population more, they could put Thames Water customers' bills up, or both. I'm not sure adding private investors to the mix gains much, and last time around it largely resulted in them sucking money out of the arrangement, to the detriment of the people the water infrastructure is supposed to serve...
  • Options
    MattW said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    Perhaps Youlgreave is the model for the future?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youlgrave_Waterworks

    It's also allegedly one of the best little known wild swimming spots in Derbyshire:
    https://shegetsaround.co.uk/the-best-wild-swimming-spots-in-youlgreave-peak-district/

    I live about 40 minutes away and I didn't know; I thought the closest was Chatsworth or Slippery Stones.
    Another valid possible alternative. And they get spring water too!

    How well do limited by guarantee companies scale up?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106

    How does the greenery of Brighton and Bristol (deffo to the left of Labour) mesh with the greenery of Herefordshire and Waveney Valley (rural preservation)?

    It doesn't. They're doing a mini-me Liberal Democrat.

    The rural seats probably won't come back now until they either do something really stupid or there is a Conservative government in the offing again.

    Brighton and Bristol are probably there for good.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 5,085
    edited July 10
    Great news for all defence spending fans. Labour defence minister* on R4 talking about defence review saying we need to ensure defence contracts go to British companies to create jobs and ensure spending stays in UK as recent contracts had gone overseas.

    I thought we were just about starting to consider that instead of pissing money up the wall on tailored British kit we would get to buying proven good kit off the shelf. Trebles all round at BAe I guess.

    *Armed forces minister Luke Pollard.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,330
    MattW said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    Perhaps Youlgreave is the model for the future?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youlgrave_Waterworks

    It's also allegedly one of the best little known wild swimming spots in Derbyshire:
    https://shegetsaround.co.uk/the-best-wild-swimming-spots-in-youlgreave-peak-district/

    I live about 40 minutes away and I didn't know; I thought the closest was Chatsworth or Slippery Stones.
    Thanks. I used to know that area really well, and wasn't aware they had a private water supply!

    Incidentally, a relative's farm (not a million miles away from a major conurbation) has a private water supply from a well. They're still not massively uncommon for farms and the like. Water companies seem to not like them, though,
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,819
    The BBC reports that Starmer has made a 'cast ion' pledge on defence spending.

    Well cast iron is brittle and Cameron had a habit of making 'cast iron' pledges of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,727
    edited July 10
    Phil said:

    madmacs said:

    Excellent article. I am a Liberal environmentalist and would agree with the Greens on many environmental issues. As you explain the Greens in England and Wales are a socialist party - I suspect Jeremy Corbyn would find a new home easily within your ranks. As a past economist I found the economic policies in their manifesto in cloud cuckoo land. I suspect if they had come to pass we would, ironically, have the same results as the Liz Truss shambles.

    The problem with the Greens is that they say they are green, but when push comes to shove they oppose green infrastructure at every turn, even though we are (according to them) in a climate emergency.

    In reality, the Greens are an alliance between socialists & NIMBYs, who’s de-growth agenda & bias to localism leads to them opposing the actual Green transition we need to have.
    I've voted Green in the past but really struggle with this iteration. It is an ideological socialist vehicle, not a green one. Which I suppose is appropriate given the Conservatives were determined to break our institutions and courts and Labour tend to forget about workers but its not currently of interest to me as someone who thinks ideologies of all flavours have too much say over pragmatism.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422

    FPT @Malmesbury said:

    Most HMO are not organised or registered. The tell tale, when you visit one, is the absence of the mandatory, specified, fire alarm system.

    In many blocks of flats, sold in London, it has become standard to have hefty locks on the bedroom doors, as built. With the keyholes discretely in the door handles themselves. Funny that.

    This is another issue with excessive/complex regulation.

    Comply and you end up with a good chance going bust and losing everything as you have to compete on price with those cheating.

    Cheat and you probably get away with it because many or most are cheating (see above) and you are unlikely to be caught as the council have to pay for so many bureaucrats to administer the various regulations and their index linked pensions, that short of the place burning down, they are unlikely to have the resources to enforce anything much.
    A relative who runs a building business said that there used to be areas of London where it was impossible to work. If you paid taxes and at least the minimum wage.

    This was due to the presence of firms who operated on a large scale, cash in hand. They paid no tax and sweated the labour. They made every short cut possible and left houses in a dangerous condition.

    A favourite was to bring labour from a foreign country (generally the same country as the owner), carefully selected to speak no English. Often forced to sleep on the building sites themselves, when bought over. Many were injured.

    When he tried bringing it to the attention of senior politicians and some civil servants he was, politely, told nothing could/would be done. Building control signed off the buildings…

    The parallels with the garment trade in Leicester are of note.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    I assumed the answer to the question in the title was going to be: "Because the Tories were kicked out."

    How naive of me.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,330
    boulay said:

    Great news for all defence spending fans. Labour defence minister on R4 talking about defence review saying we need to ensure defence contracts go to British companies to create jobs and ensure spending stays in UK as recent contracts had gone overseas.

    I thought we were just about starting to consider that instead of pissing money up the wall on tailored British kit we would get to buying proven good kit off the shelf. Trebles all round at BAe I guess.

    You could do both: make the kit here, to proven designs licensed from foreign companies. Although we might get a we-must-alter-it attitude that led to the Phantom F-4K et al...
  • Options
    Jim_the_LurkerJim_the_Lurker Posts: 134
    Interesting article.

    Of course there is also a potential alternative explanation for the high green / left parties vote - and it was discussed on LRB podcast I listened too. Left voters essentially had permission to vote with further left because the collapse of the Conservatives. The Conservative message of a “supermajority” took the jeopardy out of the vote. In a closer contest this may not be the case.

    Although worth remembering that once a voter has played away (so to speak) they tend to be more willing to do it again.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588
    Thanks 148grss. Deep issues both on polling and policy. I think social democracy has a better chance of delivering stuff, and note that a left wing Labour party under Corbyn lost to the worst campaign from the right in history. But anyway 5 questions out of hundreds that arise, for clarification:

    1) Is the green socialism you espouse consistent with regular elections where after 5 years such a government can be replaced with one which reverses it all?

    2) Which large state is the best example of successfully implementing your policies?

    3) Is NATO for now necessary, desirable, neither or both?

    4) What would socialism do about state debt and borrowing?

    5) What % of GDP should be state managed?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422
    rcs1000 said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    I don't understand this comment.

    Firstly, if it wanted to - and it would be entirely stupid to do so - HMG could pay £100bn for Thames Water. The UK has a good credit rating. It can print money. It could pay 50x the "right" price and buy it, if it wanted to.

    Secondly, the most likely scenario where HMG takes ownership of Thames Water is where it misses an interest payment. At which point, the administrators are called, the shareholders are wiped out, and the bondholders accept - say - 50 cents on the dollar. Thames Water, pre interest payments, is highly profitable. It is just massively over-leveraged. Which is shit for the people who lent money to it. But... so what? The shareholders lose everything, the bond holders lose half their money... and water continues to flow.
    The whole point of modern bankruptcy is the above - the current owners are stuffed. Those whole money to it are fairly stuffed.

    It’s worth pointing out that in the scenario above - 50% of Thames Water’s debts evaporate - overnight it goes from a troubled business to one in rude health, financially.

    It would be worth protecting *suppliers*, I think, since if some of them are exposed to loss, this could have a ripple effect that might cause damage. Though if I was supplying Thames Water, I would be asking for immediate payment before shipment.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    Doesn't that in itself rather suggest privatisation has been a complete failure, if in thirty years it hasn't accomplished what it was meant to while running up vast levels of debt?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422

    rcs1000 said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    I don't understand this comment.

    Firstly, if it wanted to - and it would be entirely stupid to do so - HMG could pay £100bn for Thames Water. The UK has a good credit rating. It can print money. It could pay 50x the "right" price and buy it, if it wanted to.

    Secondly, the most likely scenario where HMG takes ownership of Thames Water is where it misses an interest payment. At which point, the administrators are called, the shareholders are wiped out, and the bondholders accept - say - 50 cents on the dollar. Thames Water, pre interest payments, is highly profitable. It is just massively over-leveraged. Which is shit for the people who lent money to it. But... so what? The shareholders lose everything, the bond holders lose half their money... and water continues to flow.
    Until this is resolved it's just going to be drip, drip, drip... isn't it?
    Then the dam breaks.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,819
    pm215 said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    But what would be the benefit to the customer of owning a share in a company whose income all comes from the customers themselves and whose outgoings are, as you note, going to have to be large?

    When this kind of model is proposed it always has a feel to me of playing accounting games. If the government is effectively borrowing or paying for something, we shouldn't engage in financial contortions purely to keep sums off the official "government borrowing" or "government expenditure" totals -- what does it achieve in reality? And if there's a long term investment case where putting in capital now will achieve a return in the longer term such that private investers might stump up some cash, shouldn't the government (whose borrowing costs are probably lower) be in favour of making that investment itself?

    As you say, the requirement for capital costs hasn't gone away -- where will the money come from? The government could tax the general population more, they could put Thames Water customers' bills up, or both. I'm not sure adding private investors to the mix gains much, and last time around it largely resulted in them sucking money out of the arrangement, to the detriment of the people the water infrastructure is supposed to serve...
    I assume the theory behind utility privatisation was that the money required for capital investment would be raised by the company from its customers rather than by the government from taxation (which has many other spending demands).

    Any 'blame' would thus be given to the company rather than the government.

    As the company was supposed to owned by small shareholders in this country any profits would recycle back into the economy.

    While regulators would ensure the system remained balanced.

    Weak regulators and the entry of foreign private equity seems to have led to have been a bad combination.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033
    On the subject of the thread header, it's interesting but the conclusions could be inverted very easily.

    Streeting may draw the more obvious conclusion that voters don't care who is actually doing what in the NHS as long as they don't have to wait eight hours for an ambulance.

    Or Miliband may be too scared of the numerous small majorities in key areas to take on the NIMBYs.

    If Starmer is sensible, he'll go for competence and try to steady the ship. That in itself is a pretty formidable challenge and if he can pull it off popularity will follow.
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 952
    edited July 10
    pm215 said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    But what would be the benefit to the customer of owning a share in a company whose income all comes from the customers themselves and whose outgoings are, as you note, going to have to be large?

    When this kind of model is proposed it always has a feel to me of playing accounting games. If the government is effectively borrowing or paying for something, we shouldn't engage in financial contortions purely to keep sums off the official "government borrowing" or "government expenditure" totals -- what does it achieve in reality? And if there's a long term investment case where putting in capital now will achieve a return in the longer term such that private investers might stump up some cash, shouldn't the government (whose borrowing costs are probably lower) be in favour of making that investment itself?

    As you say, the requirement for capital costs hasn't gone away -- where will the money come from? The government could tax the general population more, they could put Thames Water customers' bills up, or both. I'm not sure adding private investors to the mix gains much, and last time around it largely resulted in them sucking money out of the arrangement, to the detriment of the people the water infrastructure is supposed to serve...
    New capital investment will have to be funded by bill payers, albeit deferred over time rather than all up front. This should always be the case.

    What should be avoided is bills also going up to bail out shareholders or bondholders who have an insolvent structure given the size of current interest payments (before the need for capital investment).

    Once the current shareholders are wiped out and bondholders have a significant haircut on the value of bonds, then both public and private investment in the company becomes possible in conjunction with bill rises for future capital expenditure. That investment should be able to generate positive returns net of the cost of financing it if properly structured.

    This doesn't need to become a big headache for Starmer.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,743

    The BBC reports that Starmer has made a 'cast ion' pledge on defence spending.

    Well cast iron is brittle and Cameron had a habit of making 'cast iron' pledges of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands.

    No timeline though, and 2.5% is nowhere near enough. We spent nearly 3% as recently as 1997 at which time we thought the world was peaceful and Russia was no threat.
  • Options
    Jim_the_LurkerJim_the_Lurker Posts: 134
    edited July 10

    rcs1000 said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    I don't understand this comment.

    Firstly, if it wanted to - and it would be entirely stupid to do so - HMG could pay £100bn for Thames Water. The UK has a good credit rating. It can print money. It could pay 50x the "right" price and buy it, if it wanted to.

    Secondly, the most likely scenario where HMG takes ownership of Thames Water is where it misses an interest payment. At which point, the administrators are called, the shareholders are wiped out, and the bondholders accept - say - 50 cents on the dollar. Thames Water, pre interest payments, is highly profitable. It is just massively over-leveraged. Which is shit for the people who lent money to it. But... so what? The shareholders lose everything, the bond holders lose half their money... and water continues to flow.
    Until this is resolved it's just going to be drip, drip, drip... isn't it?
    This line from the CEO of Thames Water in FT amused me:

    “Chris Weston, who joined as chief executive in January, received a £195,000 bonus for the three months to the end of March, taking his total pay to £437,000 during a period when Britain’s largest water utility has been battling to avoid nationalisation. Weston said the bonus was based “purely on performance” as Thames “needed to be able to attract the best talent to the company”.

    I love that logic - I have to get lots of money so that the company can attract someone who can do the job at least as badly as me.

    The CFO got £1.33m in case you are interested in where the priorities are.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 20,483
    @148grss thank-you for your header. It's always good to see new authors, and distinctive contributions.

    I think you have perhaps underweighed a factor I am beginning to see in a few commentaries - that a lot of people voted against Labour to take out Tories, so there is a hidden tactical vote of indeterminate size which supports a Labour Government. I need to see numbers on that, which I do not think are around yet. That stands against the claims about Starmer having a weak mandate because 'he only had a third of votes on a low turnout'.

    On the Greens, I am on the other side - I regard them as quite practical locally and rather loopy at national level, with a habit of knee jerks. I still recall Baroness Jenny responding to the Jean Charles de Menezes incident by making a comparison between the Met and the Syrian Secret Police, which is simply unhinged (in the absence of, say, evidence of mass graves of protestors found on Hampstead Heath). However much I support the line on other things, I can't ignore that.

    There's a related issue that the Greens are all about "we must stop economic growth", but have not afaics ever engaged with the significant reductions in energy intensity of GDP - for example from 106 to 77 metric tons of oil equivalent per million GBP GDP in just a decade from 2012 to 2022. * I think my numbers are right on that.

    Nor have they really engaged with the shift from "making" to "mind-work".

    I'm probably with you that the GP need to work out what they want to be, but I'd be looking for a move more towards the position occupied by German Greens. I don't see that a capital-L Left position (say from Corbyn leftwards) has, or justifies, any future.

    In your position, I think there is also a problem with a tension between Liberal Left and the Revolutionary Left. IMO Laurie Penny notably impaled herself on that divide when she was trying to promote herself as a "journalist on behalf of student protesters" back around 2010, and was a subject of merciless satire as a 'liberal'.

    * https://www.statista.com/statistics/552343/import-dependency-primary-fuels-uk/
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 5,085

    boulay said:

    Great news for all defence spending fans. Labour defence minister on R4 talking about defence review saying we need to ensure defence contracts go to British companies to create jobs and ensure spending stays in UK as recent contracts had gone overseas.

    I thought we were just about starting to consider that instead of pissing money up the wall on tailored British kit we would get to buying proven good kit off the shelf. Trebles all round at BAe I guess.

    You could do both: make the kit here, to proven designs licensed from foreign companies. Although we might get a we-must-alter-it attitude that led to the Phantom F-4K et al...
    Would be good to buy licence to make proven kit here where we need enough volume and repeat production of parts for upkeep etc, set up factories on disused military bases. Still more expensive than buying the kit off the shelf but likely cheaper than the British alternative that doesn’t work, takes decades to go into service and ends up obsolete.

    Find the best drones and if they are Chinese just copy them and don’t buy the rights, see if they appreciate it for a change but set up a factory that can make variants in good numbers that can be scaled up easily - build it on a site where say a steel mill is closed so nobody gives a crap about planning issues and you can fill the jobs.

    By insisting on spending on British companies it provides a potential dodge for spending so they can do a big capital project that’s actually political and claim it’s for the defence effort - see G Brown and aircraft carriers.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    Roger said:

    Well done! Excellent header.

    (PS Why '148grss'? It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue)

    148 Grenadier Regiment SS

    It's a nazi thing
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,553
    Does the list of Green target seats really contain Chorley - which is the speaker's seat where by convention the opposition parties don't stand?

  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 26,061
    OT uplifting Brian Clough (non-woke lefty) medical story
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0QKEl3_L2yw
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,553

    rcs1000 said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    I don't understand this comment.

    Firstly, if it wanted to - and it would be entirely stupid to do so - HMG could pay £100bn for Thames Water. The UK has a good credit rating. It can print money. It could pay 50x the "right" price and buy it, if it wanted to.

    Secondly, the most likely scenario where HMG takes ownership of Thames Water is where it misses an interest payment. At which point, the administrators are called, the shareholders are wiped out, and the bondholders accept - say - 50 cents on the dollar. Thames Water, pre interest payments, is highly profitable. It is just massively over-leveraged. Which is shit for the people who lent money to it. But... so what? The shareholders lose everything, the bond holders lose half their money... and water continues to flow.
    Until this is resolved it's just going to be drip, drip, drip... isn't it?
    This line from the CEO of Thames Water in FT amused me:

    “Chris Weston, who joined as chief executive in January, received a £195,000 bonus for the three months to the end of March, taking his total pay to £437,000 during a period when Britain’s largest water utility has been battling to avoid nationalisation. Weston said the bonus was based “purely on performance” as Thames “needed to be able to attract the best talent to the company”.

    I love that logic - I have to get lots of money so that the company can attract someone who can do the job at least as badly as me.

    The CFO got £1.33m in case you are interested in where the priorities are.
    He did manage to send a £150m dividend to shareholders so a 0.1% bonus seems fair for achieving the f**ing unacceptable...
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    Are we all ready for Jimmy Anderson’s last test?

    I’m not.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 20,483
    edited July 10

    MattW said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    Perhaps Youlgreave is the model for the future?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youlgrave_Waterworks

    It's also allegedly one of the best little known wild swimming spots in Derbyshire:
    https://shegetsaround.co.uk/the-best-wild-swimming-spots-in-youlgreave-peak-district/

    I live about 40 minutes away and I didn't know; I thought the closest was Chatsworth or Slippery Stones.
    Thanks. I used to know that area really well, and wasn't aware they had a private water supply!

    Incidentally, a relative's farm (not a million miles away from a major conurbation) has a private water supply from a well. They're still not massively uncommon for farms and the like. Water companies seem to not like them, though,
    A former artist acquaintance lived in the house who were iirc either at the bottom or first on the supply, and used to remark that they were the only people with a power-shower. Not quite true, as the others could fit a pressure protection vessel, but a good story.

    There's a huge water tank dated 1829 in the middle of the village, which is I think the origin - setup by the Womens Friendly Society.

    https://letsgopeakdistrict.co.uk/listing/youlgreave/
    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.1751601,-1.6865945,3a,57.3y,354.02h,84.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3SUPKZ81lzf8UL29Qy7msQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu
  • Options
    theProletheProle Posts: 1,011
    FPT
    Nigelb said:

    Farron on Today this morning highlighting decision day for Ofwat regarding Thames, and the water industry in general.
    He correctly identified it as a big test for the new government. They need to say a firm no to Thames idea that it can bail out its investors at our expense.

    One of the few examples where the case for public ownership is overwhelming.

    I'm not sure that the fact that the current owners of Thames Water stand to lose their shirts says anything about the virtues or otherwise of public ownership vs private ownership. The main learning point (one might think) is that Caveat Emptor applys particularly strongly to those buying debt laden utilities.

    As I understand, the underlying business is profitable, so the administrators should be able to sell it to somebody with no effect on services to end customers. It's only a mixture of the owners and lenders who get wiped out - to which the correct response is "hard cheese".
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,905
    boulay said:

    Great news for all defence spending fans. Labour defence minister* on R4 talking about defence review saying we need to ensure defence contracts go to British companies to create jobs and ensure spending stays in UK as recent contracts had gone overseas.

    I thought we were just about starting to consider that instead of pissing money up the wall on tailored British kit we would get to buying proven good kit off the shelf. Trebles all round at BAe I guess.

    *Armed forces minister Luke Pollard.

    That depends on how they spend the money.
    British defence contractors are quite capable of producing very good kit, alongside the hyper inflated rubbish.

    Note that Labour are going to conduct a year long defence review before they ramp up spending from its current levels. I'd suspend judgment until you see what they actually Dom rather than assuming they'll just continue in the manner of the last couple of decades.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    theProle said:

    FPT

    Nigelb said:

    Farron on Today this morning highlighting decision day for Ofwat regarding Thames, and the water industry in general.
    He correctly identified it as a big test for the new government. They need to say a firm no to Thames idea that it can bail out its investors at our expense.

    One of the few examples where the case for public ownership is overwhelming.

    I'm not sure that the fact that the current owners of Thames Water stand to lose their shirts says anything about the virtues or otherwise of public ownership vs private ownership. The main learning point (one might think) is that Caveat Emptor applys particularly strongly to those buying debt laden utilities.

    As I understand, the underlying business is profitable, so the administrators should be able to sell it to somebody with no effect on services to end customers. It's only a mixture of the owners and lenders who get wiped out - to which the correct response is "hard cheese".
    The Thames debacle shows OFWAT hasnt been doing its job and that Parliament hasnt been scrutinising OFWAT
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,905

    rcs1000 said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    I don't understand this comment.

    Firstly, if it wanted to - and it would be entirely stupid to do so - HMG could pay £100bn for Thames Water. The UK has a good credit rating. It can print money. It could pay 50x the "right" price and buy it, if it wanted to.

    Secondly, the most likely scenario where HMG takes ownership of Thames Water is where it misses an interest payment. At which point, the administrators are called, the shareholders are wiped out, and the bondholders accept - say - 50 cents on the dollar. Thames Water, pre interest payments, is highly profitable. It is just massively over-leveraged. Which is shit for the people who lent money to it. But... so what? The shareholders lose everything, the bond holders lose half their money... and water continues to flow.
    Until this is resolved it's just going to be drip, drip, drip... isn't it?
    This line from the CEO of Thames Water in FT amused me:

    “Chris Weston, who joined as chief executive in January, received a £195,000 bonus for the three months to the end of March, taking his total pay to £437,000 during a period when Britain’s largest water utility has been battling to avoid nationalisation. Weston said the bonus was based “purely on performance” as Thames “needed to be able to attract the best talent to the company”.

    I love that logic - I have to get lots of money so that the company can attract someone who can do the job at least as badly as me.

    The CFO got £1.33m in case you are interested in where the priorities are.
    There's a very simple (though not cost free) solution that will cut through all the crap.
    It's called administration.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,602
    Pity those more popular policies never win elections, eh? What a country!
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033
    edited July 10
    FPT, but relevant to this one:
    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    Farron on Today this morning highlighting decision day for Ofwat regarding Thames, and the water industry in general.
    He correctly identified it as a big test for the new government. They need to say a firm no to Thames idea that it can bail out its investors at our expense.

    One of the few examples where the case for public ownership is overwhelming.

    I'm not sure that the fact that the current owners of Thames Water stand to lose their shirts says anything about the virtues or otherwise of public ownership vs private ownership. The main learning point (one might think) is that Caveat Emptor applys particularly strongly to those buying debt laden utilities.

    As I understand, the underlying business is profitable, so the administrators should be able to sell it to somebody with no effect on services to end customers. It's only a mixture of the owners and lenders who get wiped out - to which the correct response is "hard cheese".
    One issue, and one that makes it more complicated, is that the regulator was most definitely asleep at the wheel when the current owners were buying it.

    The major issues at Thames Water stem from its time under the ownership of Australian firm Macquarie. They borrowed money to buy it, transferred that money to Thames Water illegally using a Cayman Islands subsidiary, and then sold their shares at a fat profit.

    And where was the regulator, who should have stopped them doing so, then blocked the sale until it had been undone? Nowhere.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41152516

    So one problem is that the current owners might sue on the basis the government has been negligent (which it has, although so have they) if it is renationalised.

    Is there any good regulator of utilities out there? OFGEM are equally hopeless which is why so many of our power companies behave in ways the Camorra would blink at.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,553
    theProle said:

    FPT

    Nigelb said:

    Farron on Today this morning highlighting decision day for Ofwat regarding Thames, and the water industry in general.
    He correctly identified it as a big test for the new government. They need to say a firm no to Thames idea that it can bail out its investors at our expense.

    One of the few examples where the case for public ownership is overwhelming.

    I'm not sure that the fact that the current owners of Thames Water stand to lose their shirts says anything about the virtues or otherwise of public ownership vs private ownership. The main learning point (one might think) is that Caveat Emptor applys particularly strongly to those buying debt laden utilities.

    As I understand, the underlying business is profitable, so the administrators should be able to sell it to somebody with no effect on services to end customers. It's only a mixture of the owners and lenders who get wiped out - to which the correct response is "hard cheese".
    That does require Ofwat to do what they are being paid to do and not do what their mates (the water companies want) as they've being doing for the past 14 years...
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    ydoethur said:

    FPT, but relevant to this one:

    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    Farron on Today this morning highlighting decision day for Ofwat regarding Thames, and the water industry in general.
    He correctly identified it as a big test for the new government. They need to say a firm no to Thames idea that it can bail out its investors at our expense.

    One of the few examples where the case for public ownership is overwhelming.

    I'm not sure that the fact that the current owners of Thames Water stand to lose their shirts says anything about the virtues or otherwise of public ownership vs private ownership. The main learning point (one might think) is that Caveat Emptor applys particularly strongly to those buying debt laden utilities.

    As I understand, the underlying business is profitable, so the administrators should be able to sell it to somebody with no effect on services to end customers. It's only a mixture of the owners and lenders who get wiped out - to which the correct response is "hard cheese".
    One issue, and one that makes it more complicated, is that the regulator was most definitely asleep at the wheel when the current owners were buying it.

    The major issues at Thames Water stem from its time under the ownership of Australian firm Macquarie. They borrowed money to buy it, transferred that money to Thames Water illegally using a Cayman Islands subsidiary, and then sold their shares at a fat profit.

    And where was the regulator, who should have stopped them doing so, then blocked the sale until it had been undone? Nowhere.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41152516

    So one problem is that they current owners might sue on the basis the government has been negligent (which it has, although so have they) if it is renationalised.

    Is there any good regulator of utilities out there? OFGEM are equally hopeless which is why so many of our power companies behave in ways the Camorra would blink at.
    OFSTED :smiley:
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 30,246
    FPT
    Roger said:

    DeclanF said:

    From @Phil (I think) on the previous thread re the Letby case -

    "The Guardian claims to have spoken to eight clinicians, seven of them specialising in neonatology who described Evans claims that an air embolism could be introduced in the way claimed during the trials as (I quote the article) nonsensical, “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical” in half the cases & the other half relied on a research paper that the /authors/ of that paper said was completely inapplicable.

    I am not an expert, but this seems ... concerning to me."

    If so, it is odd, isn't it, as @Algakirk has repeatedly pointed out, that none of these clinicians was willing to give evidence for the defence during the trial - assuming any of them were asked.

    Why not?

    Because they were not asked.

    It's difficult to see what point you are making. It's not like giving evidence at the trial would have been a sticking their head above the parapet thing to do. What makes you think saying things to the guardian is a markedly lower risk thing to do than saying things in court? It's much higher risk because if they were talking to the press prior to the latest judgment that leaves them exposed to contempt charges.
    I presume that when they're asked to be an expert witness, or were they to be asked, they start looking into the case in detail, as opposed to reacting to one thing presented out of context, and they come to conclusions that the defence don't want to use.
    I don't see any basis for any of those suppositions.
    The defence case were able to call expert witnesses. The defence case in their appeal, when they made these particular points about air embolisms, were able to call expert witnesses. They never did. Even when they were talking about a topic where an expert witness would be useful.

    Either they are the most incompetent defence lawyers in the history of lawyering, or they couldn't find any expert witnesses
    whose testimony they wanted to put in front of the court.
    And those arguments don't apply to the subpostmasters because...?
    Many of the sub-postermasters were brow-beaten into pleading guilty rather than fighting. When they fought in an organised manner they won.

    Most importantly they were not able to challenge the claim that the IT system was right without paying for a full audit themselves
    I remember a dinner table conversation with a very emminent barrister (a family friend) who said in his experience he never came across anyone who pleaded guilty who wasn't. I don't know whether or not he was correct but what he said has crossed my mind many times over the last twenty years since he said it.
    Does he admit he was wrong now?
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 5,085
    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Great news for all defence spending fans. Labour defence minister* on R4 talking about defence review saying we need to ensure defence contracts go to British companies to create jobs and ensure spending stays in UK as recent contracts had gone overseas.

    I thought we were just about starting to consider that instead of pissing money up the wall on tailored British kit we would get to buying proven good kit off the shelf. Trebles all round at BAe I guess.

    *Armed forces minister Luke Pollard.

    That depends on how they spend the money.
    British defence contractors are quite capable of producing very good kit, alongside the hyper inflated rubbish.

    Note that Labour are going to conduct a year long defence review before they ramp up spending from its current levels. I'd suspend judgment until you see what they actually Dom rather than assuming they'll just continue in the manner of the last couple of decades.
    I’m very happy for them to do a review and suspend judgement but it hasn’t started well if one of the ministers claims we need the contracts to go to UK suppliers for reasons of keeping the money here rather than the key being getting the best kit for the best money.

    I absolutely agree we make good kit but we don’t make all kit so there cannot be any dogmatic approach if deciding we need kit x and then waiting for a British defence contractor to say “we can knock that up” if there is already a brilliant one available from South Korea or Turkey. If we can, buy manufacturing rights with no export allowed so it justifies setting up a factory but they need to choose the best kit available for what we need at the best price and whether the money stays in the UK or not should be way down the list of imperatives.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    Certainly Starmer's win was not the huge endorsement Blair got from Middle England. Labour got fewer seats than in 1997 and 2001 and a lower voteshare than Blair got even in 2005. There were also wins for candidates to the left of Labour on Middle East policies as in 2005 and the Greens and LDs did well as they did them.

    However it was not a result showing a desire for socialism either. The LDs won more seats under Davey than Charles Kennedy had focusing on centre right liberal Remain seats in the South. Starmer won more seats than Corbyn ever did in 2017 or 2019 and he also won a majority which Melenchon's block failed to do in France
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 60,122
    Well done @148grss on your debut piece. An interesting read. Amazing how many 2nd place greens there are.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,553
    ydoethur said:

    FPT, but relevant to this one:

    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    Farron on Today this morning highlighting decision day for Ofwat regarding Thames, and the water industry in general.
    He correctly identified it as a big test for the new government. They need to say a firm no to Thames idea that it can bail out its investors at our expense.

    One of the few examples where the case for public ownership is overwhelming.

    I'm not sure that the fact that the current owners of Thames Water stand to lose their shirts says anything about the virtues or otherwise of public ownership vs private ownership. The main learning point (one might think) is that Caveat Emptor applys particularly strongly to those buying debt laden utilities.

    As I understand, the underlying business is profitable, so the administrators should be able to sell it to somebody with no effect on services to end customers. It's only a mixture of the owners and lenders who get wiped out - to which the correct response is "hard cheese".
    One issue, and one that makes it more complicated, is that the regulator was most definitely asleep at the wheel when the current owners were buying it.

    The major issues at Thames Water stem from its time under the ownership of Australian firm Macquarie. They borrowed money to buy it, transferred that money to Thames Water illegally using a Cayman Islands subsidiary, and then sold their shares at a fat profit.

    And where was the regulator, who should have stopped them doing so, then blocked the sale until it had been undone? Nowhere.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41152516

    So one problem is that they current owners might sue on the basis the government has been negligent (which it has, although so have they) if it is renationalised.

    Is there any good regulator of utilities out there? OFGEM are equally hopeless which is why so many of our power companies behave in ways the Camorra would blink at.
    The scale of the original debt was known when the current buyers bought it - so I really don't see that argument...

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033

    ydoethur said:

    FPT, but relevant to this one:

    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    Farron on Today this morning highlighting decision day for Ofwat regarding Thames, and the water industry in general.
    He correctly identified it as a big test for the new government. They need to say a firm no to Thames idea that it can bail out its investors at our expense.

    One of the few examples where the case for public ownership is overwhelming.

    I'm not sure that the fact that the current owners of Thames Water stand to lose their shirts says anything about the virtues or otherwise of public ownership vs private ownership. The main learning point (one might think) is that Caveat Emptor applys particularly strongly to those buying debt laden utilities.

    As I understand, the underlying business is profitable, so the administrators should be able to sell it to somebody with no effect on services to end customers. It's only a mixture of the owners and lenders who get wiped out - to which the correct response is "hard cheese".
    One issue, and one that makes it more complicated, is that the regulator was most definitely asleep at the wheel when the current owners were buying it.

    The major issues at Thames Water stem from its time under the ownership of Australian firm Macquarie. They borrowed money to buy it, transferred that money to Thames Water illegally using a Cayman Islands subsidiary, and then sold their shares at a fat profit.

    And where was the regulator, who should have stopped them doing so, then blocked the sale until it had been undone? Nowhere.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41152516

    So one problem is that they current owners might sue on the basis the government has been negligent (which it has, although so have they) if it is renationalised.

    Is there any good regulator of utilities out there? OFGEM are equally hopeless which is why so many of our power companies behave in ways the Camorra would blink at.
    OFSTED :smiley:
    Ofsted, although I've been pretty outspoken about the disasters wrought in recent years by Spielman's incompetence and the decision of the DfE to make them an extension of their office, is indeed actually an example of a regulator that can do good work. Under Tomlinson, for example, it was instrumental in driving school improvements and laid the groundwork for five years of solid achievement.

    One thing that does bother me about them is how much their performance seems to depend on who their leader is, which suggests the underlying structure is weak. This is complicated by the fact that rather too many chief inspectors have been appointed on the basis of who they know (and in at least one case, who they were sleeping with) rather than any innate ability.

    But if Ofgem or Ofwat had been operating at the standards of OFSTED, even in its worst days under Spielman, it is in fact unimaginable that they would be in this shit (literally) now.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 20,483

    boulay said:

    Great news for all defence spending fans. Labour defence minister on R4 talking about defence review saying we need to ensure defence contracts go to British companies to create jobs and ensure spending stays in UK as recent contracts had gone overseas.

    I thought we were just about starting to consider that instead of pissing money up the wall on tailored British kit we would get to buying proven good kit off the shelf. Trebles all round at BAe I guess.

    You could do both: make the kit here, to proven designs licensed from foreign companies. Although we might get a we-must-alter-it attitude that led to the Phantom F-4K et al...
    1) if you are going to buy foreign, buy the standard, existing design. No “an S class Marc, but with octagonal wheels and runs on phlogiston”.
    2) Consider reality in purchasing. Instead of trying to buy a few of the most expensive, buy something cheap enough to be useful.
    3) From 3 - your orders might then be big enough to get workshare or even a factory.
    4) When collaborating on an international program, claim that you are going to buy 3x amount you really are. The German love doing this.

    For example, if the MoD bought 500 Archer artillery systems, we could actually afford them. They work (proven in Ukraine). And if we put in an order for 500, we would get the right to demand a factory gets built for them in the U.K.
    They are also a model owned by a subsidiary of a British Company (Bofors/BAe), so even for ones made in Sweden we benefit.

    The same is true of CV90 armoured vehicles we chose not to buy, going for a gold-plated custom solution instead. At a cost of billions extra.

    The Army programme management needs some serious sorting out.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 20,483
    edited July 10
    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    Roger said:

    DeclanF said:

    From @Phil (I think) on the previous thread re the Letby case -

    "The Guardian claims to have spoken to eight clinicians, seven of them specialising in neonatology who described Evans claims that an air embolism could be introduced in the way claimed during the trials as (I quote the article) nonsensical, “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical” in half the cases & the other half relied on a research paper that the /authors/ of that paper said was completely inapplicable.

    I am not an expert, but this seems ... concerning to me."

    If so, it is odd, isn't it, as @Algakirk has repeatedly pointed out, that none of these clinicians was willing to give evidence for the defence during the trial - assuming any of them were asked.

    Why not?

    Because they were not asked.

    It's difficult to see what point you are making. It's not like giving evidence at the trial would have been a sticking their head above the parapet thing to do. What makes you think saying things to the guardian is a markedly lower risk thing to do than saying things in court? It's much higher risk because if they were talking to the press prior to the latest judgment that leaves them exposed to contempt charges.
    I presume that when they're asked to be an expert witness, or were they to be asked, they start looking into the case in detail, as opposed to reacting to one thing presented out of context, and they come to conclusions that the defence don't want to use.
    I don't see any basis for any of those suppositions.
    The defence case were able to call expert witnesses. The defence case in their appeal, when they made these particular points about air embolisms, were able to call expert witnesses. They never did. Even when they were talking about a topic where an expert witness would be useful.

    Either they are the most incompetent defence lawyers in the history of lawyering, or they couldn't find any expert witnesses
    whose testimony they wanted to put in front of the court.
    And those arguments don't apply to the subpostmasters because...?
    Many of the sub-postermasters were brow-beaten into pleading guilty rather than fighting. When they fought in an organised manner they won.

    Most importantly they were not able to challenge the claim that the IT system was right without paying for a full audit themselves
    I remember a dinner table conversation with a very emminent barrister (a family friend) who said in his experience he never came across anyone who pleaded guilty who wasn't. I don't know whether or not he was correct but what he said has crossed my mind many times over the last twenty years since he said it.
    Does he admit he was wrong now?
    He didn't deal with Police Cautions, then?

    They were absolutely notorious in New Labour's authoritarian phase, especially combined with excessive vetting-and-barring.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588
    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    Roger said:

    DeclanF said:

    From @Phil (I think) on the previous thread re the Letby case -

    "The Guardian claims to have spoken to eight clinicians, seven of them specialising in neonatology who described Evans claims that an air embolism could be introduced in the way claimed during the trials as (I quote the article) nonsensical, “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical” in half the cases & the other half relied on a research paper that the /authors/ of that paper said was completely inapplicable.

    I am not an expert, but this seems ... concerning to me."

    If so, it is odd, isn't it, as @Algakirk has repeatedly pointed out, that none of these clinicians was willing to give evidence for the defence during the trial - assuming any of them were asked.

    Why not?

    Because they were not asked.

    It's difficult to see what point you are making. It's not like giving evidence at the trial would have been a sticking their head above the parapet thing to do. What makes you think saying things to the guardian is a markedly lower risk thing to do than saying things in court? It's much higher risk because if they were talking to the press prior to the latest judgment that leaves them exposed to contempt charges.
    I presume that when they're asked to be an expert witness, or were they to be asked, they start looking into the case in detail, as opposed to reacting to one thing presented out of context, and they come to conclusions that the defence don't want to use.
    I don't see any basis for any of those suppositions.
    The defence case were able to call expert witnesses. The defence case in their appeal, when they made these particular points about air embolisms, were able to call expert witnesses. They never did. Even when they were talking about a topic where an expert witness would be useful.

    Either they are the most incompetent defence lawyers in the history of lawyering, or they couldn't find any expert witnesses
    whose testimony they wanted to put in front of the court.
    And those arguments don't apply to the subpostmasters because...?
    Many of the sub-postermasters were brow-beaten into pleading guilty rather than fighting. When they fought in an organised manner they won.

    Most importantly they were not able to challenge the claim that the IT system was right without paying for a full audit themselves
    I remember a dinner table conversation with a very emminent barrister (a family friend) who said in his experience he never came across anyone who pleaded guilty who wasn't. I don't know whether or not he was correct but what he said has crossed my mind many times over the last twenty years since he said it.
    Does he admit he was wrong now?
    A moment's reflection tells you it is not a knowable item.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,909
    Could the words in the final paragraph be inverted to the following?:

    Voters for the Labour or Green parties are never going to be persuaded to vote Conservative – so if they are the only voters Conservatives panders to they will alienate more of their right wing and parties like Reform will grow.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    ydoethur said:

    On the subject of the thread header, it's interesting but the conclusions could be inverted very easily.

    Streeting may draw the more obvious conclusion that voters don't care who is actually doing what in the NHS as long as they don't have to wait eight hours for an ambulance.

    Or Miliband may be too scared of the numerous small majorities in key areas to take on the NIMBYs.

    If Starmer is sensible, he'll go for competence and try to steady the ship. That in itself is a pretty formidable challenge and if he can pull it off popularity will follow.

    Interestingly in some seats where protecting the green belt was the biggest issue, such as Epping Forest or Chingford and Woodford Green or Romford Labour failed to win or else the LDs won as in Surrey or Buckinghamshire or Berkshire
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    eek said:

    theProle said:

    FPT

    Nigelb said:

    Farron on Today this morning highlighting decision day for Ofwat regarding Thames, and the water industry in general.
    He correctly identified it as a big test for the new government. They need to say a firm no to Thames idea that it can bail out its investors at our expense.

    One of the few examples where the case for public ownership is overwhelming.

    I'm not sure that the fact that the current owners of Thames Water stand to lose their shirts says anything about the virtues or otherwise of public ownership vs private ownership. The main learning point (one might think) is that Caveat Emptor applys particularly strongly to those buying debt laden utilities.

    As I understand, the underlying business is profitable, so the administrators should be able to sell it to somebody with no effect on services to end customers. It's only a mixture of the owners and lenders who get wiped out - to which the correct response is "hard cheese".
    That does require Ofwat to do what they are being paid to do and not do what their mates (the water companies want) as they've being doing for the past 14 years...
    OFWAT mateism is way more than 14 years old, Blair was very comfortable with it.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,553
    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    Roger said:

    DeclanF said:

    From @Phil (I think) on the previous thread re the Letby case -

    "The Guardian claims to have spoken to eight clinicians, seven of them specialising in neonatology who described Evans claims that an air embolism could be introduced in the way claimed during the trials as (I quote the article) nonsensical, “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical” in half the cases & the other half relied on a research paper that the /authors/ of that paper said was completely inapplicable.

    I am not an expert, but this seems ... concerning to me."

    If so, it is odd, isn't it, as @Algakirk has repeatedly pointed out, that none of these clinicians was willing to give evidence for the defence during the trial - assuming any of them were asked.

    Why not?

    Because they were not asked.

    It's difficult to see what point you are making. It's not like giving evidence at the trial would have been a sticking their head above the parapet thing to do. What makes you think saying things to the guardian is a markedly lower risk thing to do than saying things in court? It's much higher risk because if they were talking to the press prior to the latest judgment that leaves them exposed to contempt charges.
    I presume that when they're asked to be an expert witness, or were they to be asked, they start looking into the case in detail, as opposed to reacting to one thing presented out of context, and they come to conclusions that the defence don't want to use.
    I don't see any basis for any of those suppositions.
    The defence case were able to call expert witnesses. The defence case in their appeal, when they made these particular points about air embolisms, were able to call expert witnesses. They never did. Even when they were talking about a topic where an expert witness would be useful.

    Either they are the most incompetent defence lawyers in the history of lawyering, or they couldn't find any expert witnesses
    whose testimony they wanted to put in front of the court.
    And those arguments don't apply to the subpostmasters because...?
    Many of the sub-postermasters were brow-beaten into pleading guilty rather than fighting. When they fought in an organised manner they won.

    Most importantly they were not able to challenge the claim that the IT system was right without paying for a full audit themselves
    I remember a dinner table conversation with a very emminent barrister (a family friend) who said in his experience he never came across anyone who pleaded guilty who wasn't. I don't know whether or not he was correct but what he said has crossed my mind many times over the last twenty years since he said it.
    Does he admit he was wrong now?
    I suspect were it not for Alan Bates an awful lot of postmasters would have reached the point where they thought they were guilty given the number of people who were telling them they were guilty...
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,819
    rcs1000 said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    I don't understand this comment.

    Firstly, if it wanted to - and it would be entirely stupid to do so - HMG could pay £100bn for Thames Water. The UK has a good credit rating. It can print money. It could pay 50x the "right" price and buy it, if it wanted to.

    Secondly, the most likely scenario where HMG takes ownership of Thames Water is where it misses an interest payment. At which point, the administrators are called, the shareholders are wiped out, and the bondholders accept - say - 50 cents on the dollar. Thames Water, pre interest payments, is highly profitable. It is just massively over-leveraged. Which is shit for the people who lent money to it. But... so what? The shareholders lose everything, the bond holders lose half their money... and water continues to flow.
    Why should bondholders not lose everything ?

    Or is big finance deemed more important than small shareholders ?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033
    Stocky said:

    Could the words in the final paragraph be inverted to the following?:

    Voters for the Labour or Green parties are never going to be persuaded to vote Conservative – so if they are the only voters Conservatives panders to they will alienate more of their right wing and parties like Reform will grow.

    What @DavidL said.

    Which is true across the world, not just here. Look at US, or Israel, or France, or Greece. Or indeed the autocracies like Russia or China.

    The world is a very unhappy and unsettled place right now.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 60,122
    eek said:

    Does the list of Green target seats really contain Chorley - which is the speaker's seat where by convention the opposition parties don't stand?

    Yes. Seems only the three main parties stick to convention. Greens stood as did independents.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,032
    edited July 10
    boulay said:

    Great news for all defence spending fans. Labour defence minister* on R4 talking about defence review saying we need to ensure defence contracts go to British companies to create jobs and ensure spending stays in UK as recent contracts had gone overseas.

    I thought we were just about starting to consider that instead of pissing money up the wall on tailored British kit we would get to buying proven good kit off the shelf. Trebles all round at BAe I guess.

    *Armed forces minister Luke Pollard.

    Sorry, I immediatley go to the notion of it being Sue Pollard as the Minister.

    Surely we should ensure we have a few bits of kit that are so good, the world wants to buy them? Then we can go buy other proven good kit off the shelf. Everyone happy.

    So what are our world beaters of the next 10 - 20 years?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    MattW said:

    @148grss thank-you for your header. It's always good to see new authors, and distinctive contributions.

    I think you have perhaps underweighed a factor I am beginning to see in a few commentaries - that a lot of people voted against Labour to take out Tories, so there is a hidden tactical vote of indeterminate size which supports a Labour Government. I need to see numbers on that, which I do not think are around yet. That stands against the claims about Starmer having a weak mandate because 'he only had a third of votes on a low turnout'.

    I agree an interesting and thoughtful header with great graphs. Thanks @148grss

    I don't think it right to look at only one side of the Tactical Voting movement and say a lot of Labour voters supported Green/LD/Indy, without acknowledging the reverse. In a lot of seats the Green/LD vote was squeezed in favour of Labour. Indeed because of the relative numbers of seats (412 vs 72 +4) most likely more Lab seats benefited than LD/GP
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422
    MattW said:

    boulay said:

    Great news for all defence spending fans. Labour defence minister on R4 talking about defence review saying we need to ensure defence contracts go to British companies to create jobs and ensure spending stays in UK as recent contracts had gone overseas.

    I thought we were just about starting to consider that instead of pissing money up the wall on tailored British kit we would get to buying proven good kit off the shelf. Trebles all round at BAe I guess.

    You could do both: make the kit here, to proven designs licensed from foreign companies. Although we might get a we-must-alter-it attitude that led to the Phantom F-4K et al...
    1) if you are going to buy foreign, buy the standard, existing design. No “an S class Marc, but with octagonal wheels and runs on phlogiston”.
    2) Consider reality in purchasing. Instead of trying to buy a few of the most expensive, buy something cheap enough to be useful.
    3) From 3 - your orders might then be big enough to get workshare or even a factory.
    4) When collaborating on an international program, claim that you are going to buy 3x amount you really are. The German love doing this.

    For example, if the MoD bought 500 Archer artillery systems, we could actually afford them. They work (proven in Ukraine). And if we put in an order for 500, we would get the right to demand a factory gets built for them in the U.K.
    They are also a model owned by a subsidiary of a British Company (Bofors/BAe), so even for ones made in Sweden we benefit.

    The same is true of CV90 armoured vehicles we chose not to buy, going for a gold-plated custom solution instead. At a cost of billions extra.

    The Army programme management needs some serious sorting out.
    Big And expensive are barely a UK company anymore.

    The proponents of AJAX should be forced to drive BMP-2 for the rest of their lives. With the doors filled, not with diesel, but FOOF.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,542

    Are we all ready for Jimmy Anderson’s last test?

    I’m not.

    Despite superhuman efforts I did not finish my trial yesterday. No one else seemed to appreciate the urgency of getting it finished before the Test. People are weird.
    Hopefully England bat first and I get it finished today.
    Oh Jimmy Jimmy, Jimmy Jimmy Jimmy Anderson.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033

    rcs1000 said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    I don't understand this comment.

    Firstly, if it wanted to - and it would be entirely stupid to do so - HMG could pay £100bn for Thames Water. The UK has a good credit rating. It can print money. It could pay 50x the "right" price and buy it, if it wanted to.

    Secondly, the most likely scenario where HMG takes ownership of Thames Water is where it misses an interest payment. At which point, the administrators are called, the shareholders are wiped out, and the bondholders accept - say - 50 cents on the dollar. Thames Water, pre interest payments, is highly profitable. It is just massively over-leveraged. Which is shit for the people who lent money to it. But... so what? The shareholders lose everything, the bond holders lose half their money... and water continues to flow.
    Why should bondholders not lose everything ?

    Or is big finance deemed more important than small shareholders ?
    Are there any small shareholders in Thames Water? My understanding is that most of it is owned by pension companies.

    Of course, that does indirectly affect a lot of people who could be considered small shareholders.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 60,122
    If the Speaker stands in Chorley and is left to have a clear run by convention. Then faces the new parliament and is not elected Speaker and reverts back to Labour, I guess there is no need for a by-election?
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,553
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    I don't understand this comment.

    Firstly, if it wanted to - and it would be entirely stupid to do so - HMG could pay £100bn for Thames Water. The UK has a good credit rating. It can print money. It could pay 50x the "right" price and buy it, if it wanted to.

    Secondly, the most likely scenario where HMG takes ownership of Thames Water is where it misses an interest payment. At which point, the administrators are called, the shareholders are wiped out, and the bondholders accept - say - 50 cents on the dollar. Thames Water, pre interest payments, is highly profitable. It is just massively over-leveraged. Which is shit for the people who lent money to it. But... so what? The shareholders lose everything, the bond holders lose half their money... and water continues to flow.
    Why should bondholders not lose everything ?

    Or is big finance deemed more important than small shareholders ?
    Are there any small shareholders in Thames Water? My understanding is that most of it is owned by pension companies.

    Of course, that does indirectly affect a lot of people who could be considered small shareholders.
    If as is claimed below the current shareholders bought the company when it was already overloaded with debt the phrase is buyer beware. Those pension funds need better managers...
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    Could the words in the final paragraph be inverted to the following?:

    Voters for the Labour or Green parties are never going to be persuaded to vote Conservative – so if they are the only voters Conservatives panders to they will alienate more of their right wing and parties like Reform will grow.

    What @DavidL said.

    Which is true across the world, not just here. Look at US, or Israel, or France, or Greece. Or indeed the autocracies like Russia or China.

    The world is a very unhappy and unsettled place right now.
    Has it ever been different?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033
    edited July 10

    If the Speaker stands in Chorley and is left to have a clear run by convention. Then faces the new parliament and is not elected Speaker and reverts back to Labour, I guess there is no need for a by-election?

    Who was the last speaker not to immediately leave the House on leaving the chair? Manners-Sutton? It was a long time ago.

    Edit - in fact it seems it may have been Addington, who was also the last Speaker to become Prime Minister.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 30,246

    If the Speaker stands in Chorley and is left to have a clear run by convention. Then faces the new parliament and is not elected Speaker and reverts back to Labour, I guess there is no need for a by-election?

    No, you elect the person, not the party.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 60,122
    Whole planeloads of rich urgently fleeing UK according to Telegraph.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,734

    rcs1000 said:

    Can Labour afford to nationalise Thames Water?

    The reason (behind the dogma facade) that it was privatised in the first place was that the treasury couldn't afford the massive capital costs to modernise. They haven't gone away you know.

    An alternative such as John Lewis model where the customers become partners might be more sustainable. Or a private company where the government own a 31% share, customers own another 30% and no takeovers unless 75% of shareholders agree written into primary legislation might be more sustainable.

    I don't understand this comment.

    Firstly, if it wanted to - and it would be entirely stupid to do so - HMG could pay £100bn for Thames Water. The UK has a good credit rating. It can print money. It could pay 50x the "right" price and buy it, if it wanted to.

    Secondly, the most likely scenario where HMG takes ownership of Thames Water is where it misses an interest payment. At which point, the administrators are called, the shareholders are wiped out, and the bondholders accept - say - 50 cents on the dollar. Thames Water, pre interest payments, is highly profitable. It is just massively over-leveraged. Which is shit for the people who lent money to it. But... so what? The shareholders lose everything, the bond holders lose half their money... and water continues to flow.
    Until this is resolved it's just going to be drip, drip, drip... isn't it?
    It was the constant drip, drip, drip, that led to TW being privatised in the first place.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,707

    Roger said:

    Well done! Excellent header.

    (PS Why '148grss'? It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue)

    148 Grenadier Regiment SS

    It's a nazi thing
    Ah, I see you can't tell your Wehrmacht from your elbow.
This discussion has been closed.