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.
Isn't the biggest shareholder the Ontario Teachers pension fund? In which case more of a Canadian problem than ours.
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.
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.
Nut while the psephological points are extremely well made, I'd take exception with the opinion bits, which contain a number of unwarranted assumptions. And projecting ahead to the next election on the basis of this election's outcome seems a bit premature, mere days into this administration.
This in particular, "...Starmer is not personally popular, his policies are not popular, but left wing policies are...", just seems glib to me. Labour's policy offer pre election was extremely constrained, for an obvious reason - they expected to be in power, and will be judged on whether they deliver on their commitments.
In contrast, small parties like the Greens, or Reform, can promise all manner of superficially attractive things (to their constituencies), however financially or practically improbable. Which of course they did.
I think it's a mistake to consider this government's policies unpopular, until they've actually tried to put them into practice. I don't have any massive expectations of Starmer either - but I don't discount the possibility that he surprises on the upside.
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.
The process aiui for years was to be told "accept a caution and we can just deal with this easily" (conviction result for policeman as accepting it is a guilty plea), followed by a ministerial decision that a caution would stay on record until you were 99, and the appearance of such a caution on enhanced vetting checks.
Seeing such a check, any Committee in a caring profession or set of School Governors would opt for "safety first" especially with 'sexual' connotations.
There was one case I was aware of where a drunk 19-year old pinched a police-woman's bottom. Bye-bye career.
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 ?
The sequence of who is first in line to get their money back, in the event of a bankruptcy, is defined in the instruments themselves and the law. Owners of common stock are at the back of the queue. Bond holders are higher in the queue.
If a Labour government implements policies that left wingers like why would they then vote in a way that makes a Labour government less likely?
Nothing that the government has done and said about Palestine/Gaza/Israel since the election should surprise anyone who actually listened to what the Labour opposition was saying before the election. The appointment of the Attorney General, for example, had clearly been planned and was not something done on the back of the success of Independents.
Nut while the psephological points are extremely well made, I'd take exception with the opinion bits, which contain a number of unwarranted assumptions. And projecting ahead to the next election on the basis of this election's outcome seems a bit premature, mere days into this administration.
This in particular, "...Starmer is not personally popular, his policies are not popular, but left wing policies are...", just seems glib to me. Labour's policy offer pre election was extremely constrained, for an obvious reason - they expected to be in power, and will be judged on whether they deliver on their commitments.
In contrast, small parties like the Greens, or Reform, can promise all manner of superficially attractive things (to their constituencies), however financially or practically improbable. Which of course they did.
I think it's a mistake to consider this government's policies unpopular, until they've actually tried to put them into practice. I don't have any massive expectations of Starmer either - but I don't discount the possibility that he surprises on the upside.
Given my expectations of him, if he doesn't surprise me on the upside he's had an absolute shocker.
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.
That is a point about the original frankly bloviatory claim. We now have pretty clear evidence of SPMs pleading guilty to false accounting rather than face a conviction for theft, while being guilty of neither.
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 ?
The sequence of who is first in line to get their money back, in the event of a bankruptcy, is defined in the instruments themselves and the law. Owners of common stock are at the back of the queue. Bond holders are higher in the queue.
That's alright I'm happy to let bondholders lose all their money as well.
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".
No.
The point is that the infrastructure needs a huge amount of investment. Which is going to come from either the bill payer or taxpayer, or a combination of the two. A new private sector (almost certainly overseas) owner is just going to do, over the next decade, what Macqaurie did post privatisation - siphon off excess dividends by building up debt. That is almost inevitable.
What are the compensating advantages of being in the private sector, given it will remain a monopoly ?
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.
Isn't the biggest shareholder the Ontario Teachers pension fund? In which case more of a Canadian problem than ours.
I think it's the USS, then the Canadian Local Government scheme.
But it's some time since I checked and I could be wrong.
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.
I suspect that for many of those potential Labour supporters who voted Reform the biggest policy stance difference that affected their vote was Reform's promise of a freeze on non-essential immigration. Reducing immigration is an issue that is owned by Reform at the moment, but is it necessarily a right-wing/left-wing thing?
Some issues where Reform is definitely more traditionally rightwing - eg giving more tax breaks to the rich - are probably not what is attracting those potential Labour voters to Reform.
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.
Isn't the biggest shareholder the Ontario Teachers pension fund? In which case more of a Canadian problem than ours.
The permanent apparatus of government is absolutely desperate for Thames Water to not go down. The Solihull Project, possibly?
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.
Isn't the biggest shareholder the Ontario Teachers pension fund? In which case more of a Canadian problem than ours.
The permanent apparatus of government is absolutely desperate for Thames Water to not go down. The Solihull Project, possibly?
I think it's probably just because when a regulated body goes belly up due to a regulatory failure it reflects badly on the government.
More Phillips Berenson than Solihull, I would say.
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.
For sure - but that's relatively straightforward and explainable. The failure of Labour's majorities to increase and the challenge (if mostly distant) of the wider left - the subject of the lead - is the interesting bit.
As someone says above, the real enemy is the right, and so long as the right remains impotent, the left's success will come in encouraging Labour to become braver and more radical, rather than defeating it through the ballot box. The electoral challenge is important in making Labour look over its shoulder now and again.
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?
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.
Also, Roger's dinner party guest is the precise philosophical equivalent of Leon's taxi driver/'expert friend of mine says'.
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...
There are plenty of stories about pension funds losing money, including mine. As the old saw has it: all it takes to be an investment genius is a rising market and a short memory.
"...the installation of a 2m x 1m skylight on a flat roof to make a dingy flat lighter generated an astonishing fuss. The redoubtable red-trousered resisters approached this small pane of glass – visible only to the occupant – with all the fire and fury required to thwart a nuclear power plant."
Nut while the psephological points are extremely well made, I'd take exception with the opinion bits, which contain a number of unwarranted assumptions. And projecting ahead to the next election on the basis of this election's outcome seems a bit premature, mere days into this administration.
This in particular, "...Starmer is not personally popular, his policies are not popular, but left wing policies are...", just seems glib to me. Labour's policy offer pre election was extremely constrained, for an obvious reason - they expected to be in power, and will be judged on whether they deliver on their commitments.
In contrast, small parties like the Greens, or Reform, can promise all manner of superficially attractive things (to their constituencies), however financially or practically improbable. Which of course they did.
I think it's a mistake to consider this government's policies unpopular, until they've actually tried to put them into practice. I don't have any massive expectations of Starmer either - but I don't discount the possibility that he surprises on the upside.
Indeed one of the idiosyncratic aspects of the 2024 election is that there was only one manifesto that was a genuine attempt at a realistic programme for Government. The Conservative promises - bring back national service and all that were as much fantasy as the Green party’s promises (well may be not quite that much). The less said about Reform’s “contract” the better.
The Labour manifesto was necessarily constrained because of the sh!tshow it expected to inherit. And quite frankly there are aspects of that manifesto that are distinctly flaky too!
"...the installation of a 2m x 1m skylight on a flat roof to make a dingy flat lighter generated an astonishing fuss. The redoubtable red-trousered resisters approached this small pane of glass – visible only to the occupant – with all the fire and fury required to thwart a nuclear power plant."
The government has immense executive power. If it wants planning changes, it can change the law to make them happen & neuter the NIMBYs completely.
Taking a French approach to rail & road permissions would be a good start.
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.
Very clearly, Starmer will follow the Blair playbook of trying to bestride the pragmatic, 'what works' centre ground, marginalising both Tories and Reform to squabble over whatever is left on the right. Until either his own side fragments or something big goes wrong in the wider world, he'll probably succeed.
A lot of Tories think that because Starmer won in one term, they'll be able to win back in one term. But when you look at their position - electoral, the competition they now face on both flanks, their personnel, their baggage, and their philospophical incoherence - I reckon they'll be lucky to have a credible shot even in 2033/4, and we're probably talking late 2030s before Labour can be dislodged. And even then, maybe not by Tories.
Well done @148grss - interesting header. I particularly like the Heinz Brandenburg chart - that's a really good visualisation of why the LDs did so well.
My gripe is, as a fellow lefty, you need to be clear who the enemy is: Starmer's Labour may be too centrist, too cautious for you but they are not your enemy, the Tories and Reform are.
Better to have a government open to arguments from the Left than one virulently opposed to them.
This is my main take from the argument, that the "battle" is to carve left wing support from the Labour regardless of whether there is a centre-left govt. It also ignores the undeniable success that a hard-right party had at the election. That's not the "battle" I'm interested in, I'm interested in dragging the electorate back towards the centre from the current centre-right / right position that it has been pushed to by the billionaire brexit supporters through their media, think-tank and party interests. I don't think you do that by attacking Starmer's Labour party, I think it can only be done by Starmer's Labour government being competent and demonstrating that centre-left policies will be better for the majority. That public confidence will allow them to move faster on the green industrial revolution and other policies. You can never prove that centre-left policies work by dividing the left and letting the right govern.
Thanks all for the kind words - I know I have a tendency to write long comments here, so thought it best to do a full header to explain my relatively happy feelings from the outcomes of the election.
I can’t stay here long today due to work, but to answer a few questions:
1) I think Bristol Central shows that Greens will mostly be targeting urban seats - whilst we do have a surprising amount of support from otherwise conservative voters in rural areas, that is not where our members are from. On the other hand I know we won those seats without hiding our lefty credentials, so maybe some of those voters are more open to left wing policies than previously thought and just have a tribal hatred of Labour.
2) On tactical voting, there is a graph floating around that I did wonder whether I should include here and write a bit about showing that if people didn’t have to vote tactically the share for Labour would be less, not more. So the tactical anti-Tory vote was already part of why Labour did so well.
3) On policy specific questions - I’m kinda tired of saying here that I disagree with the underlying assumptions of neoliberalism where private investment and balancing the budget are the most important things. When it comes to funding and taxation and such I hold a position much closer to MMT. When it comes to “how do we afford x” that is my position.
4) On NATO specifically - it’s currently a necessary evil and arguably preferable to the alternative (much like my view of the EU).
5) My name comes from the assigned username I was given at university - random numbers and letters that I still remember and therefore use.
"...the installation of a 2m x 1m skylight on a flat roof to make a dingy flat lighter generated an astonishing fuss. The redoubtable red-trousered resisters approached this small pane of glass – visible only to the occupant – with all the fire and fury required to thwart a nuclear power plant."
Watching the government try and actually make planning easier, is going to be funny to watch.
I wish them all the luck in the World, housing is undoubtedly the UK’s single biggest issue at the moment, but the NIMBY and developer interests are very well entrenched indeed.
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. .
This was exactly the strategy that led to Ajax except it was a forklift factory not a military base. It rarely goes well because of the lack of appropriate industrial capacity and dire program management.
It's not possible to become experts at building these types of systems in a few years, as Ajax demonstrates. It is, however, very possible to stop being expert in a reasonably short time, as Astute demonstrated.
This just Labour giving a slightly higher priority to dig-a-hole-and-fill-it-in job creation schemes than the tories who were more interested in a straightforward transfer of public money to the capital owning class.
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
The next county council elections will probably be fought on the housing/planning issue.
With respect to the OP, I think that the fact that the far left and Hamas apologists etc have abandoned Labour due to Starmer's leadership is something Starmer deserves great credit for and is why he's fit to be Prime Minister, unlike his party's predecessor.
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?
"...the installation of a 2m x 1m skylight on a flat roof to make a dingy flat lighter generated an astonishing fuss. The redoubtable red-trousered resisters approached this small pane of glass – visible only to the occupant – with all the fire and fury required to thwart a nuclear power plant."
I'd suggest Isobel has not got a clue; she seems to be uniquely inept where planning matters are concerned, and does not seem to have a grip on the Reeves strategy.
I suspect that when she is not doing the developing, she may be a definitive NIMBY. Her planning articles leave quite a lot of relevant detail / ciccumstances out afaics.
Plus her big example is in Scotland, which planning system is outside the purview of Westminster.
Plus being the partner of Richard Tice MP, NF Minor, so has a skin in the political game.
And a reputation of being one of the most untrustworthy journos in the country, which may or may not be relevant.
NATO summit: all about threats to world peace, politely ignoring that the biggest threat by a country mile is the old guy with the autocue.
I'm surprised he's turned up, given his stated feelings about NATO and his lack of an official role.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
A bit laboured, surely? You don't still think that wanting Biden out is a pro Trump position? If it is, a lot of very senior Dems have defected or are about to.
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?
"...the installation of a 2m x 1m skylight on a flat roof to make a dingy flat lighter generated an astonishing fuss. The redoubtable red-trousered resisters approached this small pane of glass – visible only to the occupant – with all the fire and fury required to thwart a nuclear power plant."
Watching the government try and actually make planning easier, is going to be funny to watch.
I wish them all the luck in the World, housing is undoubtedly the UK’s single biggest issue at the moment, but the NIMBY and developer interests are very well entrenched indeed.
Coming down heavy on second home owners, especially ones kept empty for much of the year, is a quicker way to get more housing units onto the market.
Planning is IMHO a relatively small part of the problem, and if they think more relaxed planning is going to resolve the housing crisis by itself, they're in for a disappointment.
So just as the Conservatives have Reform so the Labour Party has the Greens. Surely PR is now a must otherwise we are going to get some very peculiar results such as the Labour Party getting 412 seats out of 650 with only 34% of the votes.
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.
Very clearly, Starmer will follow the Blair playbook of trying to bestride the pragmatic, 'what works' centre ground, marginalising both Tories and Reform to squabble over whatever is left on the right. Until either his own side fragments or something big goes wrong in the wider world, he'll probably succeed.
A lot of Tories think that because Starmer won in one term, they'll be able to win back in one term. But when you look at their position - electoral, the competition they now face on both flanks, their personnel, their baggage, and their philospophical incoherence - I reckon they'll be lucky to have a credible shot even in 2033/4, and we're probably talking late 2030s before Labour can be dislodged. And even then, maybe not by Tories.
Since 1979 we have had 18, 13 and 14 year stints. Feels about the right ballpark. 2024 to 2039, say.
"...the installation of a 2m x 1m skylight on a flat roof to make a dingy flat lighter generated an astonishing fuss. The redoubtable red-trousered resisters approached this small pane of glass – visible only to the occupant – with all the fire and fury required to thwart a nuclear power plant."
The law needs to be changed to remove the NIMBYs having a say. Westminster could change the law tomorrow, but people want to pander to "local opinion".
The only local opinion that should matter is the landowner's, its deeply illiberal for curtain twitchers to get a say on what other people do with their property.
NATO summit: all about threats to world peace, politely ignoring that the biggest threat by a country mile is the old guy with the autocue.
I'm surprised he's turned up, given his stated feelings about NATO and his lack of an official role.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
A bit laboured, surely? You don't still think that wanting Biden out is a pro Trump position? If it is, a lot of very senior Dems have defected or are about to.
I think the point we're all overlooking is that Trump is far, far further gone down any path of decline than Biden. He looks, sounds and behaves like a character from the Simpsons, and not in a good way.
Should Biden be running? Probably not. Should he be the likely winner? Again, under normal circumstances no. But the circumstances are not normal. The opponent is even more deranged. He blows up every five minutes.
I would rather have neither candidate frankly but the hate and fear on Biden on these boards seems to me to be less than objective. Suggesting Biden is a greater threat to world peace than Trump or Putin or Xi (for example) is just nonsensical. Not helped by the fact it's most loudly espoused by Leon, of course.
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. .
This was exactly the strategy that led to Ajax except it was a forklift factory not a military base. It rarely goes well because of the lack of appropriate industrial capacity and dire program management.
It's not possible to become experts at building these types of systems in a few years, as Ajax demonstrates. It is, however, very possible to stop being expert in a reasonably short time, as Astute demonstrated.
This just Labour giving a slightly higher priority to dig-a-hole-and-fill-it-in job creation schemes than the tories who were more interested in a straightforward transfer of public money to the capital owning class.
AJAX wasn't an existing design. It was an "evolution" of existing designs - AKA not one nut or bolt from the original. It was a classic of "Unique British Requirements".
"...the installation of a 2m x 1m skylight on a flat roof to make a dingy flat lighter generated an astonishing fuss. The redoubtable red-trousered resisters approached this small pane of glass – visible only to the occupant – with all the fire and fury required to thwart a nuclear power plant."
Watching the government try and actually make planning easier, is going to be funny to watch.
I wish them all the luck in the World, housing is undoubtedly the UK’s single biggest issue at the moment, but the NIMBY and developer interests are very well entrenched indeed.
She could make a start by implementing my suggestions on masts.
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
The next county council elections will probably be fought on the housing/planning issue.
And back to the header - the Greens will then be fighting with the Lib Dems to see who can be more NIMBY. As their wedge issue to get seats off Labour.
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.
I don't think the Conservatives don't need to pander to anyone, they are the Opposition and default alternative to Labour. If the Labour government is popular come the next election, then Labour will probably win again anyway. If the Labour government is unpopular (which is likely imho), then the Conservatives can win if people have forgotten the mess of the last few years. They might even win a landslide on 33% of the vote.
Therefore elect a leader that people don't associate with the outgoing government, doesn't matter if nobody has heard of them.
"...the installation of a 2m x 1m skylight on a flat roof to make a dingy flat lighter generated an astonishing fuss. The redoubtable red-trousered resisters approached this small pane of glass – visible only to the occupant – with all the fire and fury required to thwart a nuclear power plant."
Watching the government try and actually make planning easier, is going to be funny to watch.
I wish them all the luck in the World, housing is undoubtedly the UK’s single biggest issue at the moment, but the NIMBY and developer interests are very well entrenched indeed.
No point having a big majority of you don't use it. If they're ever going to do it, now is the time.
NATO summit: all about threats to world peace, politely ignoring that the biggest threat by a country mile is the old guy with the autocue.
I'm surprised he's turned up, given his stated feelings about NATO and his lack of an official role.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
A bit laboured, surely? You don't still think that wanting Biden out is a pro Trump position? If it is, a lot of very senior Dems have defected or are about to.
I think the point we're all overlooking is that Trump is far, far further gone down any path of decline than Biden. He looks, sounds and behaves like a character from the Simpsons, and not in a good way.
Should Biden be running? Probably not. Should he be the likely winner? Again, under normal circumstances no. But the circumstances are not normal. The opponent is even more deranged. He blows up every five minutes.
I would rather have neither candidate frankly but the hate and fear on Biden on these boards seems to me to be less than objective. Suggesting Biden is a greater threat to world peace than Trump or Putin or Xi (for example) is just nonsensical. Not helped by the fact it's most loudly espoused by Leon, of course.
For those of us who have seen parents go through this (and I think this includes Leon) the idea that Joe provokes hate and fear is just preposterous. My feeling is Thank you for your service in 2020, but please retire for everyone's sake including your own.
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
The next county council elections will probably be fought on the housing/planning issue.
And back to the header - the Greens will then be fighting with the Lib Dems to see who can be more NIMBY. As their wedge issue to get seats off Labour.
Straight NIMBY isn't the right stance to take, and the parties are all variously compromised both by their policies on housing and in the Tories' case by having tried to weaken planning controls themselves.
I would expect the LibDems to be more clever and campaign on "make sure local voices are still heard" and "make sure the infrastructure to support the new homes is put in first". It will certainly help the LibDems consolidate their position in the Home Counties as the alternative to the Tories there.
NATO summit: all about threats to world peace, politely ignoring that the biggest threat by a country mile is the old guy with the autocue.
I'm surprised he's turned up, given his stated feelings about NATO and his lack of an official role.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
A bit laboured, surely? You don't still think that wanting Biden out is a pro Trump position? If it is, a lot of very senior Dems have defected or are about to.
I think the point we're all overlooking is that Trump is far, far further gone down any path of decline than Biden. He looks, sounds and behaves like a character from the Simpsons, and not in a good way.
Should Biden be running? Probably not. Should he be the likely winner? Again, under normal circumstances no. But the circumstances are not normal. The opponent is even more deranged. He blows up every five minutes.
I would rather have neither candidate frankly but the hate and fear on Biden on these boards seems to me to be less than objective. Suggesting Biden is a greater threat to world peace than Trump or Putin or Xi (for example) is just nonsensical. Not helped by the fact it's most loudly espoused by Leon, of course.
Do you find that there is a lot of hate and fear on here for Biden? I might be reading the room wrong but it’s pretty clear that the hate and fear is for Trump and then fear that the only way to stop him, defeating him at the election, is being thrown away for some stubbornness, madness by his circle, selfishness or shortsightedness.
I think about 99% of PB posters and lurkers just want Trump defeated and feel that Biden is no longer the person to do that and so hoping that anyone, Harris, Obama, the ghost of Roosevelt, comes to the rescue.
And it’s possible to extrapolate that currently Biden is the biggest threat to world peace if you believe he’s going to be the thing that allows Trump into the White House and so the domino that falls and drags the world down. He’s obviously not in himself the threat.
Of course the state can introduce its own particular set of inefficiencies into utilities...
The Price of Power: Costs of Political Corruption in Indian Electricity
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20230248 Politicians may target public goods to benefit their constituents, at the expense of others. I study corruption in the context of Indian electricity and estimate the welfare consequences. Using new administrative billing data and close-election regression discontinuities, I show that billed electricity consumption is lower for constituencies of the winning party by almost 40%, while actual consumption, measured by nighttime lights, is higher. I document the covert way in which politicians subsidize constituents by manipulating bills. These actions have substantial welfare implications, with an efficiency loss of $0.9 billion, leading to unreliable electricity supply and significant negative consequences for development...
NATO summit: all about threats to world peace, politely ignoring that the biggest threat by a country mile is the old guy with the autocue.
I'm surprised he's turned up, given his stated feelings about NATO and his lack of an official role.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
A bit laboured, surely? You don't still think that wanting Biden out is a pro Trump position? If it is, a lot of very senior Dems have defected or are about to.
I think the point we're all overlooking is that Trump is far, far further gone down any path of decline than Biden. He looks, sounds and behaves like a character from the Simpsons, and not in a good way.
Should Biden be running? Probably not. Should he be the likely winner? Again, under normal circumstances no. But the circumstances are not normal. The opponent is even more deranged. He blows up every five minutes.
I would rather have neither candidate frankly but the hate and fear on Biden on these boards seems to me to be less than objective. Suggesting Biden is a greater threat to world peace than Trump or Putin or Xi (for example) is just nonsensical. Not helped by the fact it's most loudly espoused by Leon, of course.
For those of us who have seen parents go through this (and I think this includes Leon) the idea that Joe provokes hate and fear is just preposterous. My feeling is Thank you for your service in 2020, but please retire for everyone's sake including your own.
You described him as 'the greatest threat [to world peace] by a country mile.'
If that isn't 'hate and fear,' it's just nonsense.
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.
Also, Roger's dinner party guest is the precise philosophical equivalent of Leon's taxi driver/'expert friend of mine says'.
Though not quite as clear in Roger’s case that his anecdotal person is there to miraculously confirm his every prejudice, aspiration and fear.
NATO summit: all about threats to world peace, politely ignoring that the biggest threat by a country mile is the old guy with the autocue.
I'm surprised he's turned up, given his stated feelings about NATO and his lack of an official role.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
A bit laboured, surely? You don't still think that wanting Biden out is a pro Trump position? If it is, a lot of very senior Dems have defected or are about to.
I think the point we're all overlooking is that Trump is far, far further gone down any path of decline than Biden. He looks, sounds and behaves like a character from the Simpsons, and not in a good way.
Should Biden be running? Probably not. Should he be the likely winner? Again, under normal circumstances no. But the circumstances are not normal. The opponent is even more deranged. He blows up every five minutes.
I would rather have neither candidate frankly but the hate and fear on Biden on these boards seems to me to be less than objective. Suggesting Biden is a greater threat to world peace than Trump or Putin or Xi (for example) is just nonsensical. Not helped by the fact it's most loudly espoused by Leon, of course.
Do you find that there is a lot of hate and fear on here for Biden? I might be reading the room wrong but it’s pretty clear that the hate and fear is for Trump and then fear that the only way to stop him, defeating him at the election, is being thrown away for some stubbornness, madness by his circle, selfishness or shortsightedness.
I think about 99% of PB posters and lurkers just want Trump defeated and feel that Biden is no longer the person to do that and so hoping that anyone, Harris, Obama, the ghost of Roosevelt, comes to the rescue.
And it’s possible to extrapolate that currently Biden is the biggest threat to world peace if you believe he’s going to be the thing that allows Trump into the White House and so the domino that falls and drags the world down. He’s obviously not in himself the threat.
Don't tell me that, tell Tweedledee.
Yes, I do think Biden gets a lot of hate. Possibly because of fear of Trump as you say, but frankly still far beyond what is justified by the circumstances.
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
The next county council elections will probably be fought on the housing/planning issue.
And back to the header - the Greens will then be fighting with the Lib Dems to see who can be more NIMBY. As their wedge issue to get seats off Labour.
Straight NIMBY isn't the right stance to take, and the parties are all variously compromised both by their policies on housing and in the Tories' case by having tried to weaken planning controls themselves.
I would expect the LibDems to be more clever and campaign on "make sure local voices are still heard" and "make sure the infrastructure to support the new homes is put in first". It will certainly help the LibDems consolidate their position in the Home Counties as the alternative to the Tories there.
The Lib Dems will do what the Lib Dems do so well - they’ll be cynically opportunistic and oppose everything at a local level to build up support.
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.
I’m with you, but the amount of politicking that Royal London is doing is simply extraordinary!
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's a good question.
The Green Party that I remember from when I was a member a decade or more ago when I lived in England, was united over the ends it wanted to achieve, but had a wife range of views over the best means.
Traditionally the Left, when organised into parties, has been intolerant of dissent, and intolerant of disagreement on the means to employ to achieve its desired ends. The means have often been substituted for the ends, so any disagreement on means is seen as opposition to the ends.
Whether the Greens are as open and plural these days I am not so sure, with the large changes in membership after the Brexit referendum, and post-Corbyn's leadership of Labour. The way in which the party has reacted to those with gender critical views is not promising.
So, the claim that young people were flocking in their droves to Reform, as repeatedly touted on here by @Leon turns out to be complete and utter rubbish. Why should we be surprised?
NATO summit: all about threats to world peace, politely ignoring that the biggest threat by a country mile is the old guy with the autocue.
I'm surprised he's turned up, given his stated feelings about NATO and his lack of an official role.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
A bit laboured, surely? You don't still think that wanting Biden out is a pro Trump position? If it is, a lot of very senior Dems have defected or are about to.
I think the point we're all overlooking is that Trump is far, far further gone down any path of decline than Biden. He looks, sounds and behaves like a character from the Simpsons, and not in a good way.
Should Biden be running? Probably not. Should he be the likely winner? Again, under normal circumstances no. But the circumstances are not normal. The opponent is even more deranged. He blows up every five minutes.
I would rather have neither candidate frankly but the hate and fear on Biden on these boards seems to me to be less than objective. Suggesting Biden is a greater threat to world peace than Trump or Putin or Xi (for example) is just nonsensical. Not helped by the fact it's most loudly espoused by Leon, of course.
Do you find that there is a lot of hate and fear on here for Biden? I might be reading the room wrong but it’s pretty clear that the hate and fear is for Trump and then fear that the only way to stop him, defeating him at the election, is being thrown away for some stubbornness, madness by his circle, selfishness or shortsightedness.
I think about 99% of PB posters and lurkers just want Trump defeated and feel that Biden is no longer the person to do that and so hoping that anyone, Harris, Obama, the ghost of Roosevelt, comes to the rescue.
And it’s possible to extrapolate that currently Biden is the biggest threat to world peace if you believe he’s going to be the thing that allows Trump into the White House and so the domino that falls and drags the world down. He’s obviously not in himself the threat.
I dunno. I mean, Trump being elected is the obvious worst case scenario out of the two, but I don’t feel fundamentally very at ease with Biden in the WH either. And I say that as someone who thinks his administration has on the whole been pretty solid.
I’m just not sure 4 years of a man who is very clearly in decline is a great idea for projecting US strength and confidence abroad.
"...the installation of a 2m x 1m skylight on a flat roof to make a dingy flat lighter generated an astonishing fuss. The redoubtable red-trousered resisters approached this small pane of glass – visible only to the occupant – with all the fire and fury required to thwart a nuclear power plant."
The law needs to be changed to remove the NIMBYs having a say. Westminster could change the law tomorrow, but people want to pander to "local opinion".
The only local opinion that should matter is the landowner's, its deeply illiberal for curtain twitchers to get a say on what other people do with their property.
Don't be silly, it's a government run by an ex-lawyer - there's nothing Starmer would like more than some unpopular measure Reeves is trying to get done on housing getting clogged up in the courts by nutrient neutrality or bats legislation with Labour Ministers giving the line "We are a government that follows the rule of law" whilst everyone* agrees it's a delightful marked contrast with Boris' proroging of parliament, Rishi's Rwanda plan or some such.
Nut while the psephological points are extremely well made, I'd take exception with the opinion bits, which contain a number of unwarranted assumptions. And projecting ahead to the next election on the basis of this election's outcome seems a bit premature, mere days into this administration.
This in particular, "...Starmer is not personally popular, his policies are not popular, but left wing policies are...", just seems glib to me. Labour's policy offer pre election was extremely constrained, for an obvious reason - they expected to be in power, and will be judged on whether they deliver on their commitments.
In contrast, small parties like the Greens, or Reform, can promise all manner of superficially attractive things (to their constituencies), however financially or practically improbable. Which of course they did.
I think it's a mistake to consider this government's policies unpopular, until they've actually tried to put them into practice. I don't have any massive expectations of Starmer either - but I don't discount the possibility that he surprises on the upside.
Indeed one of the idiosyncratic aspects of the 2024 election is that there was only one manifesto that was a genuine attempt at a realistic programme for Government. The Conservative promises - bring back national service and all that were as much fantasy as the Green party’s promises (well may be not quite that much). The less said about Reform’s “contract” the better.
The Labour manifesto was necessarily constrained because of the sh!tshow it expected to inherit. And quite frankly there are aspects of that manifesto that are distinctly flaky too!
It was constrained by being something the party expected to have to implement and therefore needed to be able to implement, absolutely. But I think it was also constrained by the party needing to get elected and having a view (right or wrong) on what the electorate would be willing to go for. In particular a manifesto that was a bit more expansive in its commitments *and* correspondingly willing to increase taxes (e.g. not committing to all the "no rises in income tax etc etc" lines that Labour did) would be just as realistic financially. But they thought that would not go down well with the electorate. The result of the election leaves me inclined to trust their political judgement over mine...
So, the claim that young people were flocking in their droves to Reform, as repeatedly touted on here by @Leon turns out to be complete and utter rubbish. Why should we be surprised?
That YouGov analysis is an interesting read, according to their analysis Voting Labour positively correlates with level of education and salary, not sure how that aligns with the PB subset
Good piece @148grss - I have a more positive view of this incoming Labour government, but yes of course the left should keep agitating from the left. I'm in one of the tiniest minorities in the country. I like both SKS and Owen Jones.
NATO summit: all about threats to world peace, politely ignoring that the biggest threat by a country mile is the old guy with the autocue.
I'm surprised he's turned up, given his stated feelings about NATO and his lack of an official role.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
A bit laboured, surely? You don't still think that wanting Biden out is a pro Trump position? If it is, a lot of very senior Dems have defected or are about to.
I think the point we're all overlooking is that Trump is far, far further gone down any path of decline than Biden. He looks, sounds and behaves like a character from the Simpsons, and not in a good way.
Should Biden be running? Probably not. Should he be the likely winner? Again, under normal circumstances no. But the circumstances are not normal. The opponent is even more deranged. He blows up every five minutes.
I would rather have neither candidate frankly but the hate and fear on Biden on these boards seems to me to be less than objective. Suggesting Biden is a greater threat to world peace than Trump or Putin or Xi (for example) is just nonsensical. Not helped by the fact it's most loudly espoused by Leon, of course.
Do you find that there is a lot of hate and fear on here for Biden? I might be reading the room wrong but it’s pretty clear that the hate and fear is for Trump and then fear that the only way to stop him, defeating him at the election, is being thrown away for some stubbornness, madness by his circle, selfishness or shortsightedness.
I think about 99% of PB posters and lurkers just want Trump defeated and feel that Biden is no longer the person to do that and so hoping that anyone, Harris, Obama, the ghost of Roosevelt, comes to the rescue.
And it’s possible to extrapolate that currently Biden is the biggest threat to world peace if you believe he’s going to be the thing that allows Trump into the White House and so the domino that falls and drags the world down. He’s obviously not in himself the threat.
Don't tell me that, tell Tweedledee.
Yes, I do think Biden gets a lot of hate. Possibly because of fear of Trump as you say, but frankly still far beyond what is justified by the circumstances.
Tell me something which accurately reflects my own point? Sure.
NATO summit: all about threats to world peace, politely ignoring that the biggest threat by a country mile is the old guy with the autocue.
I'm surprised he's turned up, given his stated feelings about NATO and his lack of an official role.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
A bit laboured, surely? You don't still think that wanting Biden out is a pro Trump position? If it is, a lot of very senior Dems have defected or are about to.
I think the point we're all overlooking is that Trump is far, far further gone down any path of decline than Biden. He looks, sounds and behaves like a character from the Simpsons, and not in a good way.
Should Biden be running? Probably not. Should he be the likely winner? Again, under normal circumstances no. But the circumstances are not normal. The opponent is even more deranged. He blows up every five minutes.
I would rather have neither candidate frankly but the hate and fear on Biden on these boards seems to me to be less than objective. Suggesting Biden is a greater threat to world peace than Trump or Putin or Xi (for example) is just nonsensical. Not helped by the fact it's most loudly espoused by Leon, of course.
For those of us who have seen parents go through this (and I think this includes Leon) the idea that Joe provokes hate and fear is just preposterous. My feeling is Thank you for your service in 2020, but please retire for everyone's sake including your own.
You described him as 'the greatest threat [to world peace] by a country mile.'
If that isn't 'hate and fear,' it's just nonsense.
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
The next county council elections will probably be fought on the housing/planning issue.
And back to the header - the Greens will then be fighting with the Lib Dems to see who can be more NIMBY. As their wedge issue to get seats off Labour.
Straight NIMBY isn't the right stance to take, and the parties are all variously compromised both by their policies on housing and in the Tories' case by having tried to weaken planning controls themselves.
I would expect the LibDems to be more clever and campaign on "make sure local voices are still heard" and "make sure the infrastructure to support the new homes is put in first". It will certainly help the LibDems consolidate their position in the Home Counties as the alternative to the Tories there.
The Lib Dems will do what the Lib Dems do so well - they’ll be cynically opportunistic and oppose everything at a local level to build up support.
That's going to put emphasis on Reeves' strategy around Local Plans and Housing Targets, and how she expedites that. She can't afford to leave it to piecemeal applications by developers, as she wants it to be Council-lead.
She'll have to have a national body drive local plans if Local Councils drag their feet like William Brown on the way to the bathtub.
Last time was death by a million bureaucratic paperchases and political spats, and eg my Local Authority last had one in place in 2002, and still haven't got one.
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. .
This was exactly the strategy that led to Ajax except it was a forklift factory not a military base. It rarely goes well because of the lack of appropriate industrial capacity and dire program management.
It's not possible to become experts at building these types of systems in a few years, as Ajax demonstrates. It is, however, very possible to stop being expert in a reasonably short time, as Astute demonstrated.
This just Labour giving a slightly higher priority to dig-a-hole-and-fill-it-in job creation schemes than the tories who were more interested in a straightforward transfer of public money to the capital owning class.
AJAX wasn't an existing design. It was an "evolution" of existing designs - AKA not one nut or bolt from the original. It was a classic of "Unique British Requirements".
I still don't understand why we didn't just build the CV90. For what we've spent on Ajax, we'd probably have 1-200 of the actually deployed. (If we could afford to operate them.)
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.
I’m with you, but the amount of politicking that Royal London is doing is simply extraordinary!
It will be a travesty if they get away with it
Let's not pretend that HMG aren't going to pay the capital costs for the work required to keep the water system operating, the options are that Thames Water ends up under Govt control, probably arms length, or that private investors control it and skim a fat % off the Govt underwriting of capital costs while doing the required work or, as per track record, not.
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's a good question.
The Green Party that I remember from when I was a member a decade or more ago when I lived in England, was united over the ends it wanted to achieve, but had a wife range of views over the best means.
Traditionally the Left, when organised into parties, has been intolerant of dissent, and intolerant of disagreement on the means to employ to achieve its desired ends. The means have often been substituted for the ends, so any disagreement on means is seen as opposition to the ends.
Whether the Greens are as open and plural these days I am not so sure, with the large changes in membership after the Brexit referendum, and post-Corbyn's leadership of Labour. The way in which the party has reacted to those with gender critical views is not promising.
They're incredibly authoritarian. In the last council elections here, they broke through with two councillors, then told them both that they expected the councillors to vote according to however the local Green party mandated them (which strictly is not legal), and promptly both those councillors resigned the party and now sit as independents.
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...
The “last time” was because of zero interest rates which allowed them to earn supernormal return plus ridiculous risk tolerance among investors
I think it’s a one time risk and it should be managed (eg limit dividends as a percentage of capital investments)
The really advantage private investors bring is that they are outside the control of the Treasury and politicians. Otherwise investment in sewage plants is less politically attractive than paying nurses more, for example.
So, the claim that young people were flocking in their droves to Reform, as repeatedly touted on here by @Leon turns out to be complete and utter rubbish. Why should we be surprised?
Tory support is five times higher among the elderly, whereas for Reform it's not even double the level among the young. Which is striking - the emergence of Reform appears to have contributed further to the erosion of Tory support among those of working age. Probably because right-leaning younger voters are more willing to shop around with their vote, whereas those of more advanced age are stuck in their habits (an example does come to mind...).
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 thatmight cause damage. Though if I was supplying Thames Water, I would be asking for immediate payment before shipment.m
That should be doable. It’s Kimble that can’t meet its interest payments not Thames Water.
"...the installation of a 2m x 1m skylight on a flat roof to make a dingy flat lighter generated an astonishing fuss. The redoubtable red-trousered resisters approached this small pane of glass – visible only to the occupant – with all the fire and fury required to thwart a nuclear power plant."
Watching the government try and actually make planning easier, is going to be funny to watch.
I wish them all the luck in the World, housing is undoubtedly the UK’s single biggest issue at the moment, but the NIMBY and developer interests are very well entrenched indeed.
No point having a big majority of you don't use it. If they're ever going to do it, now is the time.
Absolutely. Both the last government in 2019, and Blair back in 1997, did very little of note with a large majority.
There will be massive respect across the political spectrum, if Starmer can actually have a real go at the too-difficult list that governments have ignored since back in Thatcher’s day.
NATO summit: all about threats to world peace, politely ignoring that the biggest threat by a country mile is the old guy with the autocue.
I'm surprised he's turned up, given his stated feelings about NATO and his lack of an official role.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
A bit laboured, surely? You don't still think that wanting Biden out is a pro Trump position? If it is, a lot of very senior Dems have defected or are about to.
I think the point we're all overlooking is that Trump is far, far further gone down any path of decline than Biden. He looks, sounds and behaves like a character from the Simpsons, and not in a good way.
Should Biden be running? Probably not. Should he be the likely winner? Again, under normal circumstances no. But the circumstances are not normal. The opponent is even more deranged. He blows up every five minutes.
I would rather have neither candidate frankly but the hate and fear on Biden on these boards seems to me to be less than objective. Suggesting Biden is a greater threat to world peace than Trump or Putin or Xi (for example) is just nonsensical. Not helped by the fact it's most loudly espoused by Leon, of course.
Do you find that there is a lot of hate and fear on here for Biden? I might be reading the room wrong but it’s pretty clear that the hate and fear is for Trump and then fear that the only way to stop him, defeating him at the election, is being thrown away for some stubbornness, madness by his circle, selfishness or shortsightedness.
I think about 99% of PB posters and lurkers just want Trump defeated and feel that Biden is no longer the person to do that and so hoping that anyone, Harris, Obama, the ghost of Roosevelt, comes to the rescue.
And it’s possible to extrapolate that currently Biden is the biggest threat to world peace if you believe he’s going to be the thing that allows Trump into the White House and so the domino that falls and drags the world down. He’s obviously not in himself the threat.
Don't tell me that, tell Tweedledee.
Yes, I do think Biden gets a lot of hate. Possibly because of fear of Trump as you say, but frankly still far beyond what is justified by the circumstances.
Tell me something which accurately reflects my own point? Sure.
It didn't. You said something that was the *opposite* of Boulay's extrapolation.
You may of course just have expressed yourself clumsily.
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's a good question.
The Green Party that I remember from when I was a member a decade or more ago when I lived in England, was united over the ends it wanted to achieve, but had a wife range of views over the best means.
Traditionally the Left, when organised into parties, has been intolerant of dissent, and intolerant of disagreement on the means to employ to achieve its desired ends. The means have often been substituted for the ends, so any disagreement on means is seen as opposition to the ends.
Whether the Greens are as open and plural these days I am not so sure, with the large changes in membership after the Brexit referendum, and post-Corbyn's leadership of Labour. The way in which the party has reacted to those with gender critical views is not promising.
They're incredibly authoritarian. In the last council elections here, they broke through with two councillors, then told them both that they expected the councillors to vote according to however the local Green party mandated them (which strictly is not legal), and promptly both those councillors resigned the party and now sit as independents.
That's... not authoritarian? That is just the difference between representatives and delegates - with representatives being given the onus to try and intuit the will of their constituents and delegates only being authorised to go as far as the mandate they have been given by another democratic body. I actually prefer a delegate system - I think that is more democratic overall. It isn't compatible with the British system, and in this instance doesn't really work because those councillors are supposed to represent their wards and the party, not just the party, but I do think there is a place for that kind of decision making in our politics.
So, the claim that young people were flocking in their droves to Reform, as repeatedly touted on here by @Leon turns out to be complete and utter rubbish. Why should we be surprised?
That YouGov analysis is an interesting read, according to their analysis Voting Labour positively correlates with level of education and salary, not sure how that aligns with the PB subset
No that wasn't entirely true in 2024, certainly on salary level. This year it was the Tories and LDs who did best with upper middle class ABs relative to the rest of their voters and the LDs did better with middle class C1s than working class C2s and DEs. Labour did almost as well with DEs as ABs and better with DEs than lower middle class C1s.
NATO summit: all about threats to world peace, politely ignoring that the biggest threat by a country mile is the old guy with the autocue.
I'm surprised he's turned up, given his stated feelings about NATO and his lack of an official role.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
A bit laboured, surely? You don't still think that wanting Biden out is a pro Trump position? If it is, a lot of very senior Dems have defected or are about to.
I think the point we're all overlooking is that Trump is far, far further gone down any path of decline than Biden. He looks, sounds and behaves like a character from the Simpsons, and not in a good way.
Should Biden be running? Probably not. Should he be the likely winner? Again, under normal circumstances no. But the circumstances are not normal. The opponent is even more deranged. He blows up every five minutes.
I would rather have neither candidate frankly but the hate and fear on Biden on these boards seems to me to be less than objective. Suggesting Biden is a greater threat to world peace than Trump or Putin or Xi (for example) is just nonsensical. Not helped by the fact it's most loudly espoused by Leon, of course.
Do you find that there is a lot of hate and fear on here for Biden? I might be reading the room wrong but it’s pretty clear that the hate and fear is for Trump and then fear that the only way to stop him, defeating him at the election, is being thrown away for some stubbornness, madness by his circle, selfishness or shortsightedness.
I think about 99% of PB posters and lurkers just want Trump defeated and feel that Biden is no longer the person to do that and so hoping that anyone, Harris, Obama, the ghost of Roosevelt, comes to the rescue.
And it’s possible to extrapolate that currently Biden is the biggest threat to world peace if you believe he’s going to be the thing that allows Trump into the White House and so the domino that falls and drags the world down. He’s obviously not in himself the threat.
Don't tell me that, tell Tweedledee.
Yes, I do think Biden gets a lot of hate. Possibly because of fear of Trump as you say, but frankly still far beyond what is justified by the circumstances.
Tell me something which accurately reflects my own point? Sure.
It didn't. You said something that was the *opposite* of Boulay's extrapolation.
You may of course just have expressed yourself clumsily.
No I didn't. I said without specifying that Biden was a danger, and boulay expanded the mechanism of danger. Elliptical is not clumsy (though it depends on the comprehension skills of the target audience)
To be fair I think 80% of the Biden threat is the danger of losing to Trump. The other 20% is the thought of Biden himself being in charge of us foreign policy for another 4 years when he should not be in charge of his own car
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.
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.
I’d be cautious of accusing Macquarie of acting illegally.
The claim appears to be that the bridge to fund the acquisition was subsequently repaid with new borrowings from Thames Water (presumably dividended up). That’s 100% normal practice in this type of structure
NATO summit: all about threats to world peace, politely ignoring that the biggest threat by a country mile is the old guy with the autocue.
I'm surprised he's turned up, given his stated feelings about NATO and his lack of an official role.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
A bit laboured, surely? You don't still think that wanting Biden out is a pro Trump position? If it is, a lot of very senior Dems have defected or are about to.
I think the point we're all overlooking is that Trump is far, far further gone down any path of decline than Biden. He looks, sounds and behaves like a character from the Simpsons, and not in a good way.
Should Biden be running? Probably not. Should he be the likely winner? Again, under normal circumstances no. But the circumstances are not normal. The opponent is even more deranged. He blows up every five minutes.
I would rather have neither candidate frankly but the hate and fear on Biden on these boards seems to me to be less than objective. Suggesting Biden is a greater threat to world peace than Trump or Putin or Xi (for example) is just nonsensical. Not helped by the fact it's most loudly espoused by Leon, of course.
Do you find that there is a lot of hate and fear on here for Biden? I might be reading the room wrong but it’s pretty clear that the hate and fear is for Trump and then fear that the only way to stop him, defeating him at the election, is being thrown away for some stubbornness, madness by his circle, selfishness or shortsightedness.
I think about 99% of PB posters and lurkers just want Trump defeated and feel that Biden is no longer the person to do that and so hoping that anyone, Harris, Obama, the ghost of Roosevelt, comes to the rescue.
And it’s possible to extrapolate that currently Biden is the biggest threat to world peace if you believe he’s going to be the thing that allows Trump into the White House and so the domino that falls and drags the world down. He’s obviously not in himself the threat.
Yes, half the posters on here could have voted for Haley, myself included, it is just Trump they want to stop
"...the installation of a 2m x 1m skylight on a flat roof to make a dingy flat lighter generated an astonishing fuss. The redoubtable red-trousered resisters approached this small pane of glass – visible only to the occupant – with all the fire and fury required to thwart a nuclear power plant."
The law needs to be changed to remove the NIMBYs having a say. Westminster could change the law tomorrow, but people want to pander to "local opinion".
The only local opinion that should matter is the landowner's, its deeply illiberal for curtain twitchers to get a say on what other people do with their property.
Now that Labour have lifted the moratorium on onshore wind, it's worth remembering that the largest number of objections to onshore wind farm applications came from the Met Office, because the best places for wind turbines on land is on the sides of hills where they would block the rainfall radar on the top of the hill.
So there is a need for a planning system that would reconcile conflicts like this where an intended use for land creates an adverse impact. But the system should also be capable of swiftly dismissing spurious objections that have no merit.
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's dead now. He was a friend of my father's who was a solicitor and he'd been a barrister for many years so I very much doubt it. He'd defended Myra Hindley amongst others
So, the claim that young people were flocking in their droves to Reform, as repeatedly touted on here by @Leon turns out to be complete and utter rubbish. Why should we be surprised?
So, the claim that young people were flocking in their droves to Reform, as repeatedly touted on here by @Leon turns out to be complete and utter rubbish. Why should we be surprised?
More like 50-69s flocking to Reform on that chart, ie roughly Leon's age bracket? Under 30s flocked to the Greens and LDs if anything though most voted Labour still
So, the claim that young people were flocking in their droves to Reform, as repeatedly touted on here by @Leon turns out to be complete and utter rubbish. Why should we be surprised?
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
The next county council elections will probably be fought on the housing/planning issue.
And back to the header - the Greens will then be fighting with the Lib Dems to see who can be more NIMBY. As their wedge issue to get seats off Labour.
And take them off Tory county councils proposing more homes on fields too
So actually with the people that actually work for a living, Labour really did get the 25 point leads.
Doesn't suggest a huge amount of long-term ability for the Tories if the prime category of 25-39s now are not becoming any more Conservative with age.
Add on 16 and 17 year old votes, maybe they won't actually vote but with those very marginal seats of which there are now a lot, you can see how that might make a difference.
So, the claim that young people were flocking in their droves to Reform, as repeatedly touted on here by @Leon turns out to be complete and utter rubbish. Why should we be surprised?
So, the claim that young people were flocking in their droves to Reform, as repeatedly touted on here by @Leon turns out to be complete and utter rubbish. Why should we be surprised?
Tory support is five times higher among the elderly, whereas for Reform it's not even double the level among the young. Which is striking - the emergence of Reform appears to have contributed further to the erosion of Tory support among those of working age. Probably because right-leaning younger voters are more willing to shop around with their vote, whereas those of more advanced age are stuck in their habits (an example does come to mind...).
It does look from this chart as if younger voters were far less wedded to the two-party system and tactical voting than older voters, which may be a question of experience and tactical naivete, or may represent an actual shift.
Encouraging to see such high Lib Dem votes among the young. For years our support has been pretty much flat across all age groups.
Well done @148grss - interesting header. I particularly like the Heinz Brandenburg chart - that's a really good visualisation of why the LDs did so well.
My gripe is, as a fellow lefty, you need to be clear who the enemy is: Starmer's Labour may be too centrist, too cautious for you but they are not your enemy, the Tories and Reform are.
Better to have a government open to arguments from the Left than one virulently opposed to them.
I generally agree with this point, but I also take the position that if those who are expected to be centre/left are actually too centre/right that helps the enemy anyway. France is a good example of this - Macron has given away far too much policy and rhetoric to the far right and it looked like RN was going to win; instead it only made gains, but not because of Macron but because the Left Alliance offered something for people to really be enthusiastic about.
The choice between socialism or barbarism (to quote Rosa Luxemburg) changes when between the neoliberal centre and the far right to a choice between slow barbarism and quick barbarism. The cutting away of the social safety net, the demonising of immigrants and queer folk, the degradation of the planet - these would of course be worse under a far right government, but centrist governments do them too and by doing so legitimise the policy positions of the far right and still immiserate the average person, alienating them. That alienation makes them more susceptible to the far right, not less.
There is a reason that this general election had historically low turn out - because the offer from both sides was just thin gruel. And I don't think it will be long before voters are as tired of Labour's thin gruel as they were the Tories. After that, where do they turn? My desire is leftwards - which is why I think the left needs to organise and push this government as leftwards as it can. The desire of capitalism will be to the far right - they would take a Farage or Le Pen over a Melanchon or Corbyn any day of the week.
Comments
Nut while the psephological points are extremely well made, I'd take exception with the opinion bits, which contain a number of unwarranted assumptions. And projecting ahead to the next election on the basis of this election's outcome seems a bit premature, mere days into this administration.
This in particular, "...Starmer is not personally popular, his policies are not popular, but left wing policies are...", just seems glib to me.
Labour's policy offer pre election was extremely constrained, for an obvious reason - they expected to be in power, and will be judged on whether they deliver on their commitments.
In contrast, small parties like the Greens, or Reform, can promise all manner of superficially attractive things (to their constituencies), however financially or practically improbable. Which of course they did.
I think it's a mistake to consider this government's policies unpopular, until they've actually tried to put them into practice. I don't have any massive expectations of Starmer either - but I don't discount the possibility that he surprises on the upside.
They were absolutely notorious in New Labour's authoritarian phase, especially combined with excessive vetting-and-barring.
The process aiui for years was to be told "accept a caution and we can just deal with this easily" (conviction result for policeman as accepting it is a guilty plea), followed by a ministerial decision that a caution would stay on record until you were 99, and the appearance of such a caution on enhanced vetting checks.
Seeing such a check, any Committee in a caring profession or set of School Governors would opt for "safety first" especially with 'sexual' connotations.
There was one case I was aware of where a drunk 19-year old pinched a police-woman's bottom. Bye-bye career.
We are nearly at the end of page 2 and still talking about it.
What to do? Ah, I know.
"CYCLIST"
Nothing that the government has done and said about Palestine/Gaza/Israel since the election should surprise anyone who actually listened to what the Labour opposition was saying before the election. The appointment of the Attorney General, for example, had clearly been planned and was not something done on the back of the success of Independents.
The point is that the infrastructure needs a huge amount of investment. Which is going to come from either the bill payer or taxpayer, or a combination of the two. A new private sector (almost certainly overseas) owner is just going to do, over the next decade, what Macqaurie did post privatisation - siphon off excess dividends by building up debt.
That is almost inevitable.
What are the compensating advantages of being in the private sector, given it will remain a monopoly ?
But it's some time since I checked and I could be wrong.
Some issues where Reform is definitely more traditionally rightwing - eg giving more tax breaks to the rich - are probably not what is attracting those potential Labour voters to Reform.
More Phillips Berenson than Solihull, I would say.
As someone says above, the real enemy is the right, and so long as the right remains impotent, the left's success will come in encouraging Labour to become braver and more radical, rather than defeating it through the ballot box. The electoral challenge is important in making Labour look over its shoulder now and again.
Do the Barclays still own it ?
Rachel Reeves is hopelessly naive if she thinks she can beat Britain’s Nimbys
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/07/09/chancellor-rachel-reeves-housebuilding-planning-nimbys/
"...the installation of a 2m x 1m skylight on a flat roof to make a dingy flat lighter generated an astonishing fuss. The redoubtable red-trousered resisters approached this small pane of glass – visible only to the occupant – with all the fire and fury required to thwart a nuclear power plant."
Was not his decision to impose guillotine on voting. Was his decision not to rerun
Membership will have final leadership day
Need time to see contenders in opposition be it's a difficult skill set from government
The Labour manifesto was necessarily constrained because of the sh!tshow it expected to inherit. And quite frankly there are aspects of that manifesto that are distinctly flaky too!
Taking a French approach to rail & road permissions would be a good start.
A lot of Tories think that because Starmer won in one term, they'll be able to win back in one term. But when you look at their position - electoral, the competition they now face on both flanks, their personnel, their baggage, and their philospophical incoherence - I reckon they'll be lucky to have a credible shot even in 2033/4, and we're probably talking late 2030s before Labour can be dislodged. And even then, maybe not by Tories.
I don't think you do that by attacking Starmer's Labour party, I think it can only be done by Starmer's Labour government being competent and demonstrating that centre-left policies will be better for the majority. That public confidence will allow them to move faster on the green industrial revolution and other policies. You can never prove that centre-left policies work by dividing the left and letting the right govern.
I can’t stay here long today due to work, but to answer a few questions:
1) I think Bristol Central shows that Greens will mostly be targeting urban seats - whilst we do have a surprising amount of support from otherwise conservative voters in rural areas, that is not where our members are from. On the other hand I know we won those seats without hiding our lefty credentials, so maybe some of those voters are more open to left wing policies than previously thought and just have a tribal hatred of Labour.
2) On tactical voting, there is a graph floating around that I did wonder whether I should include here and write a bit about showing that if people didn’t have to vote tactically the share for Labour would be less, not more. So the tactical anti-Tory vote was already part of why Labour did so well.
3) On policy specific questions - I’m kinda tired of saying here that I disagree with the underlying assumptions of neoliberalism where private investment and balancing the budget are the most important things. When it comes to funding and taxation and such I hold a position much closer to MMT. When it comes to “how do we afford x” that is my position.
4) On NATO specifically - it’s currently a necessary evil and arguably preferable to the alternative (much like my view of the EU).
5) My name comes from the assigned username I was given at university - random numbers and letters that I still remember and therefore use.
I wish them all the luck in the World, housing is undoubtedly the UK’s single biggest issue at the moment, but the NIMBY and developer interests are very well entrenched indeed.
It's not possible to become experts at building these types of systems in a few years, as Ajax demonstrates. It is, however, very possible to stop being expert in a reasonably short time, as Astute demonstrated.
This just Labour giving a slightly higher priority to dig-a-hole-and-fill-it-in job creation schemes than the tories who were more interested in a straightforward transfer of public money to the capital owning class.
Still, could be worse. The autocue could have failed and he started about sharks, e-boats and MIT again.
I suspect that when she is not doing the developing, she may be a definitive NIMBY. Her planning articles leave quite a lot of relevant detail / ciccumstances out afaics.
Plus her big example is in Scotland, which planning system is outside the purview of Westminster.
Plus being the partner of Richard Tice MP, NF Minor, so has a skin in the political game.
And a reputation of being one of the most untrustworthy journos in the country, which may or may not be relevant.
(well if nobody else will say it)
Planning is IMHO a relatively small part of the problem, and if they think more relaxed planning is going to resolve the housing crisis by itself, they're in for a disappointment.
The only local opinion that should matter is the landowner's, its deeply illiberal for curtain twitchers to get a say on what other people do with their property.
Should Biden be running? Probably not. Should he be the likely winner? Again, under normal circumstances no. But the circumstances are not normal. The opponent is even more deranged. He blows up every five minutes.
I would rather have neither candidate frankly but the hate and fear on Biden on these boards seems to me to be less than objective. Suggesting Biden is a greater threat to world peace than Trump or Putin or Xi (for example) is just nonsensical. Not helped by the fact it's most loudly espoused by Leon, of course.
Therefore elect a leader that people don't associate with the outgoing government, doesn't matter if nobody has heard of them.
If they're ever going to do it, now is the time.
I would expect the LibDems to be more clever and campaign on "make sure local voices are still heard" and "make sure the infrastructure to support the new homes is put in first". It will certainly help the LibDems consolidate their position in the Home Counties as the alternative to the Tories there.
I think about 99% of PB posters and lurkers just want Trump defeated and feel that Biden is no longer the person to do that and so hoping that anyone, Harris, Obama, the ghost of Roosevelt, comes to the rescue.
And it’s possible to extrapolate that currently Biden is the biggest threat to world peace if you believe he’s going to be the thing that allows Trump into the White House and so the domino that falls and drags the world down. He’s obviously not in himself the threat.
The Price of Power: Costs of Political Corruption in Indian Electricity
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20230248
Politicians may target public goods to benefit their constituents, at the expense of others. I study corruption in the context of Indian electricity and estimate the welfare consequences. Using new administrative billing data and close-election regression discontinuities, I show that billed electricity consumption is lower for constituencies of the winning party by almost 40%, while actual consumption, measured by nighttime lights, is higher. I document the covert way in which politicians subsidize constituents by manipulating bills. These actions have substantial welfare implications, with an efficiency loss of $0.9 billion, leading to unreliable electricity supply and significant negative consequences for development...
If that isn't 'hate and fear,' it's just nonsense.
Yes, I do think Biden gets a lot of hate. Possibly because of fear of Trump as you say, but frankly still far beyond what is justified by the circumstances.
It will be a travesty if they get away with it
The Green Party that I remember from when I was a member a decade or more ago when I lived in England, was united over the ends it wanted to achieve, but had a wife range of views over the best means.
Traditionally the Left, when organised into parties, has been intolerant of dissent, and intolerant of disagreement on the means to employ to achieve its desired ends. The means have often been substituted for the ends, so any disagreement on means is seen as opposition to the ends.
Whether the Greens are as open and plural these days I am not so sure, with the large changes in membership after the Brexit referendum, and post-Corbyn's leadership of Labour. The way in which the party has reacted to those with gender critical views is not promising.
In other news, a great thread @148grss
I’m just not sure 4 years of a man who is very clearly in decline is a great idea for projecting US strength and confidence abroad.
* All the old worthies
Voting Labour positively correlates with level of education and salary, not sure how that aligns with the PB subset
She'll have to have a national body drive local plans if Local Councils drag their feet like William Brown on the way to the bathtub.
Last time was death by a million bureaucratic paperchases and political spats, and eg my Local Authority last had one in place in 2002, and still haven't got one.
For what we've spent on Ajax, we'd probably have 1-200 of the actually deployed.
(If we could afford to operate them.)
I think it’s a one time risk and it should be managed (eg limit dividends as a percentage of capital investments)
The really advantage private investors bring is that they are outside the control of the Treasury and politicians. Otherwise investment in sewage plants is less politically attractive than paying nurses more, for example.
There will be massive respect across the political spectrum, if Starmer can actually have a real go at the too-difficult list that governments have ignored since back in Thatcher’s day.
You may of course just have expressed yourself clumsily.
Scientists Discover Way to “Grow” Sub-Nanometer Sized Transistors
Opening the Path to Next-Generation Semiconductors through Epitaxial Growth of New Van der Waals Materials
https://www.ibs.re.kr/cop/bbs/BBSMSTR_000000000738/selectBoardArticle.do?nttId=24873&pageIndex=1&searchCnd=&searchWrd=
Reform are now the party of the working class relatively though, doing best as a percentage of their vote with C2s and DEs
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2024/07/how-britain-voted-and-why-my-post-vote-poll/
To be fair I think 80% of the Biden threat is the danger of losing to Trump. The other 20% is the thought of Biden himself being in charge of us foreign policy for another 4 years when he should not be in charge of his own car
The claim appears to be that the bridge to fund the acquisition was subsequently repaid with new borrowings from Thames Water (presumably dividended up). That’s 100% normal practice in this type of structure
So there is a need for a planning system that would reconcile conflicts like this where an intended use for land creates an adverse impact. But the system should also be capable of swiftly dismissing spurious objections that have no merit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAhEU8fHFEc
Jill Biden's Vogue cover, Hollywood political donations, and former MPs' prospects of reality tv.
Doesn't suggest a huge amount of long-term ability for the Tories if the prime category of 25-39s now are not becoming any more Conservative with age.
Add on 16 and 17 year old votes, maybe they won't actually vote but with those very marginal seats of which there are now a lot, you can see how that might make a difference.
Encouraging to see such high Lib Dem votes among the young. For years our support has been pretty much flat across all age groups.
The choice between socialism or barbarism (to quote Rosa Luxemburg) changes when between the neoliberal centre and the far right to a choice between slow barbarism and quick barbarism. The cutting away of the social safety net, the demonising of immigrants and queer folk, the degradation of the planet - these would of course be worse under a far right government, but centrist governments do them too and by doing so legitimise the policy positions of the far right and still immiserate the average person, alienating them. That alienation makes them more susceptible to the far right, not less.
There is a reason that this general election had historically low turn out - because the offer from both sides was just thin gruel. And I don't think it will be long before voters are as tired of Labour's thin gruel as they were the Tories. After that, where do they turn? My desire is leftwards - which is why I think the left needs to organise and push this government as leftwards as it can. The desire of capitalism will be to the far right - they would take a Farage or Le Pen over a Melanchon or Corbyn any day of the week.