I fully expect if labour do remove the age ranges in the minimum wage so there is just a flat minimum wage this will be counterproductive and will harm, not only the hospitality industry, but also the demographic it is purporting to help.
Why take on a younger, less experienced worked, if you can get someone with experience for the same wage ?
Pinch clamp-flation if the last in and weighted ave prices are anything to go by.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
AIU it appears to go back to failed investments in industry from the sixties and seventies such that investment has become a bad thing for a couple of generations of politicians.
But government was pretty well guaranteeing a return, by setting a guaranteed price for the electricity.
UK gov makes consistently terrible investment decisions and this doesn't change much by party. I think the main reasons are previous examples of failure and the positive pay offs happen after the politicians are judged.
It is much harder to be criticised for something you never did, than something you championed which ended up over budget or somehow went wrong.
Had we applied that approach to the water industry, the consumer would probably still have been ripped off, but at least half of the revenue would have stayed in the UK, rather than disappearing overseas. Macquarie made a lot of their money effectively borrowing from themselves to gear up the industry. So they took out dividends in the equity and got paid interest on what was effectively government guaranteed borrowing (at rates more expensive than government could itself have borrowed).
Privatised monopolies don't work in the public interest.
That's a question of regulation. Ofwat has been captured by the water companies.
If you link caps on dividends and executive bonuses and salaries to pollution levels then you'd almost certainly see the latter coming down.
The state, to repeat a point made multiple times already, tends to be dreadful at investment. For boring stuff like water networks, that's less because it makes bad investment choices of X over Y and more because political pressure is to keep bills down, and the easiest way to do that is to cut the investment budget which has little immediate adverse effect. It's no coincidence that both water quality and leak rates under the nationalised water boards were dreadful.
But even if we use the lower figure, the question is still: do you want to give £11.5bn to water company shareholders, so that the state can carry on doing pretty much exactly what the water companies are doing? And the government would have to take on the debt (which it wouldn't necessarily if it let a company fail - although the financial, delivery and political consequences of such a failure could easily be unanticipatedly bad, with things stopping that should not stop).
Anyway, the letter was from civil servants. Whether Reed has actually been captured remains to be seen, IMO, and will turn more on what actions he demands (or doesn't) of water companies and what sanctions and benefits he puts in place to incentivise those changes in outcome.
Letting the water companies go bust, while protecting the actual suppliers of actual goods and services to the water companies is perfectly possible.
The simplest method is -
1) a water company folds 2) the government guarantees a loan, specifically ring fenced to pay suppliers. 3) the shareholders and and the bond holders get a Richard III style haircut. 4) the water company carries on delivering water, under the administrators. 5) without all the debt, paying back the loan from 2) will be trivial. 6) the government should be able to make a profit on 2)
In theory that's fine, and fleshes out what I suggested above. But. Lawyers and administrators.
It's easy to write 'shareholders and creditors get x or y pence in the pound'. I'm not sure you can differentiate between categories of creditor? But even if you can, you'd have to expect legal challenges incoming. Personally, I don't see why shareholders from a bust company get anything.
However, more important would be keeping the lights on (or the water running, the sewage flowing and the leaks fixing) during the administration (your point 4), given what would be a snarl-up of liquidity. Who funds what, when, how and with what guarantees. Those are the dirty questions that high-level plans don't address, and where the service delivery would have the potential to become stuck.
Keeping the system running proved quite simple for banks, in 2008.
The money coming in for the water companies - mostly direct debits from customers - is automatic.
This would easily pay the outgoings, when the interest and repayment of loans/bonds is stopped. It’s the excessive borrowing that is the issue.
So, immediately after bankruptcy, no problem keeping the ship sailing.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
AIU it appears to go back to failed investments in industry from the sixties and seventies such that investment has become a bad thing for a couple of generations of politicians.
But government was pretty well guaranteeing a return, by setting a guaranteed price for the electricity.
UK gov makes consistently terrible investment decisions and this doesn't change much by party. I think the main reasons are previous examples of failure and the positive pay offs happen after the politicians are judged.
It is much harder to be criticised for something you never did, than something you championed which ended up over budget or somehow went wrong.
Had we applied that approach to the water industry, the consumer would probably still have been ripped off, but at least half of the revenue would have stayed in the UK, rather than disappearing overseas. Macquarie made a lot of their money effectively borrowing from themselves to gear up the industry. So they took out dividends in the equity and got paid interest on what was effectively government guaranteed borrowing (at rates more expensive than government could itself have borrowed).
Privatised monopolies don't work in the public interest.
That's a question of regulation. Ofwat has been captured by the water companies.
If you link caps on dividends and executive bonuses and salaries to pollution levels then you'd almost certainly see the latter coming down.
The state, to repeat a point made multiple times already, tends to be dreadful at investment. For boring stuff like water networks, that's less because it makes bad investment choices of X over Y and more because political pressure is to keep bills down, and the easiest way to do that is to cut the investment budget which has little immediate adverse effect. It's no coincidence that both water quality and leak rates under the nationalised water boards were dreadful.
But even if we use the lower figure, the question is still: do you want to give £11.5bn to water company shareholders, so that the state can carry on doing pretty much exactly what the water companies are doing? And the government would have to take on the debt (which it wouldn't necessarily if it let a company fail - although the financial, delivery and political consequences of such a failure could easily be unanticipatedly bad, with things stopping that should not stop).
Anyway, the letter was from civil servants. Whether Reed has actually been captured remains to be seen, IMO, and will turn more on what actions he demands (or doesn't) of water companies and what sanctions and benefits he puts in place to incentivise those changes in outcome.
Letting the water companies go bust, while protecting the actual suppliers of actual goods and services to the water companies is perfectly possible.
The simplest method is -
1) a water company folds 2) the government guarantees a loan, specifically ring fenced to pay suppliers. 3) the shareholders and and the bond holders get a Richard III style haircut. 4) the water company carries on delivering water, under the administrators. 5) without all the debt, paying back the loan from 2) will be trivial. 6) the government should be able to make a profit on 2)
In theory that's fine, and fleshes out what I suggested above. But. Lawyers and administrators.
It's easy to write 'shareholders and creditors get x or y pence in the pound'. I'm not sure you can differentiate between categories of creditor? But even if you can, you'd have to expect legal challenges incoming. Personally, I don't see why shareholders from a bust company get anything.
However, more important would be keeping the lights on (or the water running, the sewage flowing and the leaks fixing) during the administration (your point 4), given what would be a snarl-up of liquidity. Who funds what, when, how and with what guarantees. Those are the dirty questions that high-level plans don't address, and where the service delivery would have the potential to become stuck.
Keeping the system running proved quite simple for banks, in 2008.
The money coming in for the water companies - mostly direct debits from customers - is automatic.
This would easily pay the outgoings, when the interest and repayment of loans/bonds is stopped. It’s the excessive borrowing that is the issue.
So, immediately after bankruptcy, no problem keeping the ship sailing.
From memory the money is also mainly owed by a holding company, remove that and provided the operating company doesn't pass the money to the holding company things should be fine..
Umm. Did "hard man of #Brexit" Steve Baker just include "Vote Leave, Take Back Control" in a list of examples of oversimplification that lead to errors?
I think he might have, you know. ~AA #PoliticsLive
He's perhaps the politician for whom my opinion has most improved* over the past 3-4 years. He's either far more thoughtful and nuanced than he seemed, or has become so.
*to be fair, this is not a very strong field, indeed I'm struggling to think of many others at all of whom I have a better opinion now than, say, 2020. Hunt, maybe.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
AIU it appears to go back to failed investments in industry from the sixties and seventies such that investment has become a bad thing for a couple of generations of politicians.
But government was pretty well guaranteeing a return, by setting a guaranteed price for the electricity.
UK gov makes consistently terrible investment decisions and this doesn't change much by party. I think the main reasons are previous examples of failure and the positive pay offs happen after the politicians are judged.
It is much harder to be criticised for something you never did, than something you championed which ended up over budget or somehow went wrong.
Had we applied that approach to the water industry, the consumer would probably still have been ripped off, but at least half of the revenue would have stayed in the UK, rather than disappearing overseas. Macquarie made a lot of their money effectively borrowing from themselves to gear up the industry. So they took out dividends in the equity and got paid interest on what was effectively government guaranteed borrowing (at rates more expensive than government could itself have borrowed).
Privatised monopolies don't work in the public interest.
That's a question of regulation. Ofwat has been captured by the water companies.
If you link caps on dividends and executive bonuses and salaries to pollution levels then you'd almost certainly see the latter coming down.
The state, to repeat a point made multiple times already, tends to be dreadful at investment. For boring stuff like water networks, that's less because it makes bad investment choices of X over Y and more because political pressure is to keep bills down, and the easiest way to do that is to cut the investment budget which has little immediate adverse effect. It's no coincidence that both water quality and leak rates under the nationalised water boards were dreadful.
But even if we use the lower figure, the question is still: do you want to give £11.5bn to water company shareholders, so that the state can carry on doing pretty much exactly what the water companies are doing? And the government would have to take on the debt (which it wouldn't necessarily if it let a company fail - although the financial, delivery and political consequences of such a failure could easily be unanticipatedly bad, with things stopping that should not stop).
Anyway, the letter was from civil servants. Whether Reed has actually been captured remains to be seen, IMO, and will turn more on what actions he demands (or doesn't) of water companies and what sanctions and benefits he puts in place to incentivise those changes in outcome.
Letting the water companies go bust, while protecting the actual suppliers of actual goods and services to the water companies is perfectly possible.
The simplest method is -
1) a water company folds 2) the government guarantees a loan, specifically ring fenced to pay suppliers. 3) the shareholders and and the bond holders get a Richard III style haircut. 4) the water company carries on delivering water, under the administrators. 5) without all the debt, paying back the loan from 2) will be trivial. 6) the government should be able to make a profit on 2)
In theory that's fine, and fleshes out what I suggested above. But. Lawyers and administrators.
It's easy to write 'shareholders and creditors get x or y pence in the pound'. I'm not sure you can differentiate between categories of creditor? But even if you can, you'd have to expect legal challenges incoming. Personally, I don't see why shareholders from a bust company get anything.
However, more important would be keeping the lights on (or the water running, the sewage flowing and the leaks fixing) during the administration (your point 4), given what would be a snarl-up of liquidity. Who funds what, when, how and with what guarantees. Those are the dirty questions that high-level plans don't address, and where the service delivery would have the potential to become stuck.
Keeping the system running proved quite simple for banks, in 2008.
The money coming in for the water companies - mostly direct debits from customers - is automatic.
This would easily pay the outgoings, when the interest and repayment of loans/bonds is stopped. It’s the excessive borrowing that is the issue.
So, immediately after bankruptcy, no problem keeping the ship sailing.
Keeping the banks running was simple because they weren't allowed to go bust, in the formal sense. Or not at the time of greatest crisis anyway; some were sold / run down later. That meant that administrations or the financial equivalent didn't come into play (and hence plenty of people got away with a lot more than they should have done).
I agree that in theory, it shouldn't be an issue for water companies. I just suspect that in practice it wouldn't run so smoothly given that an administrators first duty in law is to the creditors.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Jack (married) is looking at Anne (marriage unknown) who is looking at George (unmarried)
If Anne is married, then married Anne is looking at unmarried George -> Yes If Anne is not married then married Jack is looking at unmarried Anne -> Yes
What do people say, not enough info?
Either Anne or Jack might be in a spot of bother with their spouse for checking out an unmarried man/woman
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
AIU it appears to go back to failed investments in industry from the sixties and seventies such that investment has become a bad thing for a couple of generations of politicians.
But government was pretty well guaranteeing a return, by setting a guaranteed price for the electricity.
UK gov makes consistently terrible investment decisions and this doesn't change much by party. I think the main reasons are previous examples of failure and the positive pay offs happen after the politicians are judged.
It is much harder to be criticised for something you never did, than something you championed which ended up over budget or somehow went wrong.
Had we applied that approach to the water industry, the consumer would probably still have been ripped off, but at least half of the revenue would have stayed in the UK, rather than disappearing overseas. Macquarie made a lot of their money effectively borrowing from themselves to gear up the industry. So they took out dividends in the equity and got paid interest on what was effectively government guaranteed borrowing (at rates more expensive than government could itself have borrowed).
Privatised monopolies don't work in the public interest.
That's a question of regulation. Ofwat has been captured by the water companies.
If you link caps on dividends and executive bonuses and salaries to pollution levels then you'd almost certainly see the latter coming down.
The state, to repeat a point made multiple times already, tends to be dreadful at investment. For boring stuff like water networks, that's less because it makes bad investment choices of X over Y and more because political pressure is to keep bills down, and the easiest way to do that is to cut the investment budget which has little immediate adverse effect. It's no coincidence that both water quality and leak rates under the nationalised water boards were dreadful.
In normal circumstances it would cost a huge amount to nationalise the water companies, however there are special cases.
Thames is drifting into special administration, its just a matter of when. Government can't really force it without the inevitable claims in the courts.
Canadian pension fund Omers (the largest shareholder) has written its entire stake off already.
The question is how much the bondholders (frequently more litigious) write off.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Jack (married) is looking at Anne (marriage unknown) who is looking at George (unmarried)
If Anne is married, then married Anne is looking at unmarried George -> Yes If Anne is not married then married Jack is looking at unmarried Anne -> Yes
What do people say, not enough info?
Either Anne or Jack might be in a spot of bother with their spouse for checking out an unmarried man/woman
She's true to herself: she's a libertarian, not a Tory. I was listening to In Our Time on Disraeli earlier. If only the Conservative Party had someone like him available.
She's true to herself: she's a libertarian, not a Tory. I was listening to In Our Time on Disraeli earlier. If only the Conservative Party had someone like him available.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Jack (married) is looking at Anne (marriage unknown) who is looking at George (unmarried)
If Anne is married, then married Anne is looking at unmarried George -> Yes If Anne is not married then married Jack is looking at unmarried Anne -> Yes
What do people say, not enough info?
Either Anne or Jack might be in a spot of bother with their spouse for checking out an unmarried man/woman
Umm. Did "hard man of #Brexit" Steve Baker just include "Vote Leave, Take Back Control" in a list of examples of oversimplification that lead to errors?
I think he might have, you know. ~AA #PoliticsLive
He's perhaps the politician for whom my opinion has most improved* over the past 3-4 years. He's either far more thoughtful and nuanced than he seemed, or has become so.
*to be fair, this is not a very strong field, indeed I'm struggling to think of many others at all of whom I have a better opinion now than, say, 2020. Hunt, maybe.
Hunt was a decent Foreign Secretary at a difficult time under Theresa May. I'm not sure he's improved much since then. Not as much as Baker anyway.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else. Plenty on repairs and maintenance, but actual new completed big projects... ??
Queensferry Crossing & Borders Railway, both opened by QEII so must be REALLY important.
Bathgate electrification through to the Wild West.
Edit: I won't suggest the electrification of the London-Bristol main line as that was so badly screwed up.
Sone big chunks of the A9 have been dualled, tbf. Fochabers bypass. A few new rail stations and realignments in the north (all incredibly ugly). Leven link.
I'd have guessed offshore wind is probably the most significant investment though, enabled by the state. Will reach 20gw in the few years - 30 by 2030.
And that reminds me that some of the delays to the A9 etc were down to the Tories, Slab etc. via the chaos caused by diversion of moneys to the Edinburgh trams - which themselves count as a major investment project, of course. I'd add the Greens to that list but delays to the A9 would be a feature not a bug for them.
For info: Greens still very much trying to kill the A9 and A96 upgrading. John Swinney's gonna have to do a deal with someone to pass his budget. Wonder who?
"The remaining single carriage sections of the A9 should go through a “climate test” before the SNP Government can spend millions on its dualling project, according to Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie.
"The former government minister laid down a marker on further spending ahead of tough financial decisions in First Minister John Swinney’s budget later this year.
"Mr Harvie’s suggestion would lead to further delays to the long-overdue commitment to dual the route all the way between Inverness and Perth.
"It would be similar to the approach to the A96 Aberdeen-Inverness road, which is also long overdue while a report on its future gathers dust in government headquarters."
Those two dualling projects are the Scottish equivalent of the Stonehenge Tunnell and the Brynglas bypass.
JFDI, preferably a decade or two ago. It gets to the point where not fixing these transport bottlenecks has a significant effect on productivity and GDP.
The Iranians know this. The Israelis know this. The Americans know this. Everybody knows.
*This is more political than technical. In US based development, money has to be be given to the right contractors, under cost plus programs designed to support a pyramid on subcontractors who then donate to the right politicians. In Israel, missile defence is urgent enough that it has to work and be affordable.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
I didn't invent it, and I'm not a fan of it particularly. Happy to stop writing it.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
I didn't invent it, and I'm not a fan of it particularly.
I didn't say you did invent it. But you would be wise to avoid its use!
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
AIU it appears to go back to failed investments in industry from the sixties and seventies such that investment has become a bad thing for a couple of generations of politicians.
But government was pretty well guaranteeing a return, by setting a guaranteed price for the electricity.
UK gov makes consistently terrible investment decisions and this doesn't change much by party. I think the main reasons are previous examples of failure and the positive pay offs happen after the politicians are judged.
It is much harder to be criticised for something you never did, than something you championed which ended up over budget or somehow went wrong.
When I was younger and more ignorant, I actually tried selling the DARPA idea to various MPs.
I eventually noticed that, while they claimed to like the idea, they actually wanted to “improve” it by
1) picking the winners 2) throw big money into 1)
As in, the complete reverse of the DARPA idea. Which is small amounts of seed money to a range of ideas in a space, see which ones actually work…
Slightly more to it than that - one program director with almost dictatorial powers, but a limited term of office. And no political decision making, of course.
You can't not have decision-making though. Ultimately, the politicians have to be accountable, which means they have to have some degree of power. In an ideal world, they just pick highly capable people who then run things independently but civil servants and bureaucrats can also suffer from group-think and ignore ideas out of their reference zone. Perhaps a new organisation might not suffer from those problems, if staffed with people from outside that culture but I wouldn't bet on it. To take a practical example, Churchill's direct interventions could be a time-wasting pain in the backside for the military and civil chiefs at times (quite a lot of times) but on the other hand they were also critical in, for example, giving the work at Bletchley Park the priority it needed and deserved.
What's needed is a proactive culture without fear of failure. Neither of these tend to sit very comfortably in the public sector (or, indeed, within the private sector and in particular large, established organisations).
For the DARPA model the politicians set policy goals, and award a tranche of funding - that's it. The reason it works is that they appoint expert program directors on very limited (c. 2 years) terms. During that time they have (in their small sphere) unchecked power to award (relatively small( grants for short term</>, high risk projects.
They get to try ideas without fear of failure (the expectation is that many will fail), and if it works, it's then someone else's to take further.
No empire building.
I don't think that's right - I think DARPA program directors are 3 - 5 years. I think the recipe to success is giving people time (say 4 years) but also then stopping contracts so they know they are moving on by default.
You're right, and I have misremembered the term in post. But it doesn't change the principle at all.
Once they're gone, that's it.
https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2022-01-12 ...Every program manager arrives at DARPA with an expiration date on their badges. It’s a short-term deal that constantly brings in new blood and is routinely cited as part of DARPA’s “special sauce.” Those who become PMs know their jobs likely will end three to five years after they start. Yet so many of them say there is no better job and that they wouldn’t have it any other way. Their collective message is that being a DARPA PM can be a dream job for just about any scientist or engineer, whether they are only beginning to rev up their careers; already making a name for their themselves in an academic, start-up, industry, or government setting; or in search of a second-career to apply the experience and wisdom they have accrued over previous decades of work...
It's the projects are shorter.
The amazing thing is the DARPA budget, $4bn out of $6trn Federal spending, 0.067%. The UK budget is about £1trn these days, so give it £1bn to work with.
It will take time to set up and start seeing returns, but what the US does with those projects has been transformative to so many industries and spawned many new industries over the decades.
Remember that we have already spent a quarter of a billion on the planning documentation for the Thames Lower Crossing.
Sky reporting the US has intelligence that Iran is imminently about to launch ballistics missiles on Israel
Not just Sky now. Quite a few American broadcasters too.
Brace brace as Leon would say.
Daniel Hagari, the Israeli military spokesman, just announced that the United States had informed Israel that it had identified Iranian preparations to imminently fire missiles at Israel.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
Except everyone knows what it means.
PB is also the chemical symbol for lead. Just saying. Or an abbreviation for personal best.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
'PB' really annoys me. What does it even mean? Prose Breaking? Particularly Bothering? Poster Bugging? Pernicious Brevity?
Anyone bothering to stay up for tonight's debate ?
God no, but I’ll be getting up early. It’s 5am for me, and I’m up at 5:30 anyway.
I’m genuinely fascinated by these two characters, they’re both very different to those at the top of the tickets, and have records as state governors to defend and to shape their vision.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
Perhaps we could adopt the German grammar for this situation and then we would have OT = On Topic and NOT = Not On Topic?
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
Except everyone knows what it means.
PB is also the chemical symbol for lead. Just saying. Or an abbreviation for personal best.
Yes, you can tell whether the poster means off topic or on topic (almost never the latter, FWIW) by whether the post is off topic or on topic.
It’s starting to feel like this is going to end (or start, depending on your interpretation) with Israel going after the Iranian nuclear sites?
There is a reason Iran has Hezbollah and Hamas armed with missiles on Israel's border. And that is because both can threaten to hit Israel hard and faster than Iran possibly could. And Israel is seemingly being quite successful at degrading the capabilities of Hezbollah.
In contrast, Iran and Israel lobbing missiles at each other from 600 miles away is unlikely to do much damage to either. But sabotage within Iran from Israel seems much more likely to cause damage, if chosen.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
AIU it appears to go back to failed investments in industry from the sixties and seventies such that investment has become a bad thing for a couple of generations of politicians.
But government was pretty well guaranteeing a return, by setting a guaranteed price for the electricity.
UK gov makes consistently terrible investment decisions and this doesn't change much by party. I think the main reasons are previous examples of failure and the positive pay offs happen after the politicians are judged.
It is much harder to be criticised for something you never did, than something you championed which ended up over budget or somehow went wrong.
Had we applied that approach to the water industry, the consumer would probably still have been ripped off, but at least half of the revenue would have stayed in the UK, rather than disappearing overseas. Macquarie made a lot of their money effectively borrowing from themselves to gear up the industry. So they took out dividends in the equity and got paid interest on what was effectively government guaranteed borrowing (at rates more expensive than government could itself have borrowed).
Privatised monopolies don't work in the public interest.
That's a question of regulation. Ofwat has been captured by the water companies.
If you link caps on dividends and executive bonuses and salaries to pollution levels then you'd almost certainly see the latter coming down.
The state, to repeat a point made multiple times already, tends to be dreadful at investment. For boring stuff like water networks, that's less because it makes bad investment choices of X over Y and more because political pressure is to keep bills down, and the easiest way to do that is to cut the investment budget which has little immediate adverse effect. It's no coincidence that both water quality and leak rates under the nationalised water boards were dreadful.
But even if we use the lower figure, the question is still: do you want to give £11.5bn to water company shareholders, so that the state can carry on doing pretty much exactly what the water companies are doing? And the government would have to take on the debt (which it wouldn't necessarily if it let a company fail - although the financial, delivery and political consequences of such a failure could easily be unanticipatedly bad, with things stopping that should not stop).
Anyway, the letter was from civil servants. Whether Reed has actually been captured remains to be seen, IMO, and will turn more on what actions he demands (or doesn't) of water companies and what sanctions and benefits he puts in place to incentivise those changes in outcome.
Letting the water companies go bust, while protecting the actual suppliers of actual goods and services to the water companies is perfectly possible.
The simplest method is -
1) a water company folds 2) the government guarantees a loan, specifically ring fenced to pay suppliers. 3) the shareholders and and the bond holders get a Richard III style haircut. 4) the water company carries on delivering water, under the administrators. 5) without all the debt, paying back the loan from 2) will be trivial. 6) the government should be able to make a profit on 2)
Well quite. The last ‘restucturing’, that was clearly intended to pay dividends with debt, should result in everyone involved getting a large haircut. The shareholders should get nothing and the bondholders a few pennies, perhaps next time the latter should look more closely at what they’re financing.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
Perhaps we could adopt the German grammar for this situation and then we would have OT = On Topic and NOT = Not On Topic?
OnT / OfT
Or we could just write it out. It's really not many letters and we're not using first generation mobiles.
My photo quota today is a Britain First activist called Andrew Edge, suited and booted for a demo in Belfast that apparently drew 23 people (that number could have been ironic, meaning "flop").
Who is the jowly chap in the photo on the wall. I think I recognise it - I was wondering if it was a Monday Club character or someone like John Tyndall. Any ideas?
Definitely not John Tyndall
Is he drunk, or is that just a poor attempt at an Osborne/Truss power stance ?
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
Except everyone knows what it means.
PB is also the chemical symbol for lead. Just saying. Or an abbreviation for personal best.
Yes, you can tell whether the poster means off topic or on topic (almost never the latter, FWIW) by whether the post is off topic or on topic.
I then have to look at what the topic is, which I only sometimes do.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
Except everyone knows what it means.
PB is also the chemical symbol for lead. Just saying. Or an abbreviation for personal best.
Well, granted, it's certainly easier to guess than some of the teeth-grinding in-speak on here: IANAL, IANAE, IANAD etc etc.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
Perhaps we could adopt the German grammar for this situation and then we would have OT = On Topic and NOT = Not On Topic?
OnT / OfT
Or we could just write it out. It's really not many letters and we're not using first generation mobiles.
Why would anyone bother to say their post was On Topic.
Once you know one of the two possibilities is not plausible the abbreviation makes perfect sense..
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
'PB' really annoys me. What does it even mean? Prose Breaking? Particularly Bothering? Poster Bugging? Pernicious Brevity?
Discussions are so rarely 'On Topic', it seems rather a rather unnecessary and somewhat ostentatious notification.
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
What actual completed investments has the state made over the past 30 years though ?
Crossrail & I can't think of much else. Plenty on repairs and maintenance, but actual new completed big projects... ??
Queensferry Crossing & Borders Railway, both opened by QEII so must be REALLY important.
Bathgate electrification through to the Wild West.
Edit: I won't suggest the electrification of the London-Bristol main line as that was so badly screwed up.
Sone big chunks of the A9 have been dualled, tbf. Fochabers bypass. A few new rail stations and realignments in the north (all incredibly ugly). Leven link.
I'd have guessed offshore wind is probably the most significant investment though, enabled by the state. Will reach 20gw in the few years - 30 by 2030.
And that reminds me that some of the delays to the A9 etc were down to the Tories, Slab etc. via the chaos caused by diversion of moneys to the Edinburgh trams - which themselves count as a major investment project, of course. I'd add the Greens to that list but delays to the A9 would be a feature not a bug for them.
For info: Greens still very much trying to kill the A9 and A96 upgrading. John Swinney's gonna have to do a deal with someone to pass his budget. Wonder who?
"The remaining single carriage sections of the A9 should go through a “climate test” before the SNP Government can spend millions on its dualling project, according to Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie.
"The former government minister laid down a marker on further spending ahead of tough financial decisions in First Minister John Swinney’s budget later this year.
"Mr Harvie’s suggestion would lead to further delays to the long-overdue commitment to dual the route all the way between Inverness and Perth.
"It would be similar to the approach to the A96 Aberdeen-Inverness road, which is also long overdue while a report on its future gathers dust in government headquarters."
Those two dualling projects are the Scottish equivalent of the Stonehenge Tunnell and the Brynglas bypass.
JFDI, preferably a decade or two ago. It gets to the point where not fixing these transport bottlenecks has a significant effect on productivity and GDP.
Hmm, in terms of road mileage things are a bit more complicated, and the need for motorways/dual carriageways isn't as clear cut. Since 2007:
HGV mileage is down 12% Car mileage is up 4% Smaller commercial vehicles up 55% (I think this is mainly home delivery in the cities)
You'd certainly want to bypass the towns on the A96, but a much cheaper way to reduce crashes (which cause most of the congestion) on the A9 would be to drop the limit to 40mph at the main junctions where almost all the crashes happen.
This drop in HGV traffic in the north of Scotland, which serves the main industries like agriculture, forestry, energy, some manufacturing, is a much bigger concern than anything else imo, and not linked to the availability of road infrastructure which has actually improved quite a bit up here (particularly around Aberdeen).
Mr. Pioneers, aye. Even if the timing couldn't be altered, they've used that gap to cut planned investment and create an atmosphere of doom and gloom that just makes a bad situation worse, which, as you say, then becomes a legitimate economic line with which to attack Labour.
It's dumb both politically and economically.
I think Nigel Lawson had it spot on when he said in his memoirs that saying how bad the situation is after you've just won an election is damaging because it undermines confidence and it's also pointless because you don't have to face the voters for some years.
Of course it's especially stupid when you've made up transparent lies like saying this is the worst situation for an incoming government since the war, when 2010 was several degrees worse, or that there is a huge hole in the public finances, while there is enough money to waste on pay rises for unreformed public sector unions and pointless and unpopular foreign aid or that things are way worse than you thought, when the figures are public.
And finally it's most staggeringly stupid when you've clearly got no convincing plan to fix anything except the tiniest of tinkering.
2010 wasnt worse for the state of public services, accumulative impact of lack of investment or economic asperations of young people. It is not all about budget finances.
It is if you're Labour, whose only answer for any problem is to waste (or "invest" as Brown called it) other people's money.
Most people who get rich make their money partly through earnings but a very substantial share comes from investments too. It is the same with countries.
One thing I do not understand is why our governments (which can borrow at lower rates than commercial companies) have not insisted on taking large stakes in offshore wind developments. They clearly provide a predictable profit stream, a fair proportion of which goes overseas.
If we are indeed overpaying for renewable electricity, couldn't more of the money at least go back into the exchequer ?
What's the flaw in this reasoning ?
AIU it appears to go back to failed investments in industry from the sixties and seventies such that investment has become a bad thing for a couple of generations of politicians.
But government was pretty well guaranteeing a return, by setting a guaranteed price for the electricity.
UK gov makes consistently terrible investment decisions and this doesn't change much by party. I think the main reasons are previous examples of failure and the positive pay offs happen after the politicians are judged.
It is much harder to be criticised for something you never did, than something you championed which ended up over budget or somehow went wrong.
Had we applied that approach to the water industry, the consumer would probably still have been ripped off, but at least half of the revenue would have stayed in the UK, rather than disappearing overseas. Macquarie made a lot of their money effectively borrowing from themselves to gear up the industry. So they took out dividends in the equity and got paid interest on what was effectively government guaranteed borrowing (at rates more expensive than government could itself have borrowed).
Privatised monopolies don't work in the public interest.
That's a question of regulation. Ofwat has been captured by the water companies.
If you link caps on dividends and executive bonuses and salaries to pollution levels then you'd almost certainly see the latter coming down.
The state, to repeat a point made multiple times already, tends to be dreadful at investment. For boring stuff like water networks, that's less because it makes bad investment choices of X over Y and more because political pressure is to keep bills down, and the easiest way to do that is to cut the investment budget which has little immediate adverse effect. It's no coincidence that both water quality and leak rates under the nationalised water boards were dreadful.
In normal circumstances it would cost a huge amount to nationalise the water companies, however there are special cases.
Thames is drifting into special administration, its just a matter of when. Government can't really force it without the inevitable claims in the courts.
Canadian pension fund Omers (the largest shareholder) has written its entire stake off already.
The question is how much the bondholders (frequently more litigious) write off.
Let the bondholders sue the shareholders and directors. Have Parliament pass primary legislation if necessary.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
Good puzzle (although I got it right so Mandy Rice-Davies).
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
Except everyone knows what it means.
PB is also the chemical symbol for lead. Just saying. Or an abbreviation for personal best.
Well, granted, it's certainly easier to guess than some of the teeth-grinding in-speak on here: IANAL, IANAE, IANAD etc etc.
Aw, diddums. I would expect someone who is so up with da yoof as to deny all possible use cases for cash, to be able to cope with a few abbreviations or acronyms.
Trump lying that the Governors of the states affected by the hurricane can't get through to talk to the President...
whilst the Governors were, er, speaking to the President about provision of whatever aid they need.
Slime ball.
Trump lying? Whatever next? It could be a pinned post on every header.
Where are the usual "both sidesers" to tell us it's more nuanced than that, and also btw Kamala Harris once exited a roundabout without indicating so they're all the same.
Comments
The money coming in for the water companies - mostly direct debits from customers - is automatic.
This would easily pay the outgoings, when the interest and repayment of loans/bonds is stopped. It’s the excessive borrowing that is the issue.
So, immediately after bankruptcy, no problem keeping the ship sailing.
*to be fair, this is not a very strong field, indeed I'm struggling to think of many others at all of whom I have a better opinion now than, say, 2020. Hunt, maybe.
Apparently around 73% of people tend to get this puzzle wrong.
"Jack is looking at Anne, Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, George is unmarried, we don't know whether Anne is married or not. Is an married person looking at an umarried person? Possible answers: yes, no, we don't have enough information to say".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct5tqp
I agree that in theory, it shouldn't be an issue for water companies. I just suspect that in practice it wouldn't run so smoothly given that an administrators first duty in law is to the creditors.
Jack (married) is looking at Anne (marriage unknown) who is looking at George (unmarried)
If Anne is married, then married Anne is looking at unmarried George -> Yes
If Anne is not married then married Jack is looking at unmarried Anne -> Yes
What do people say, not enough info?
Either Anne or Jack might be in a spot of bother with their spouse for checking out an unmarried man/woman
In normal circumstances it would cost a huge amount to nationalise the water companies, however there are special cases.
Thames is drifting into special administration, its just a matter of when.
Government can't really force it without the inevitable claims in the courts.
Canadian pension fund Omers (the largest shareholder) has written its entire stake off already.
The question is how much the bondholders (frequently more litigious) write off.
Confidence about investment decisions has fallen from +36 in August to -6 today.
That is entirely because of Starmer & Reeves messaging.
Labour has no ideological basis, or cadre. As I wrote last week, that means things can go south - fast.
https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1841102812500910439?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Brace brace as Leon would say.
Just saying.
A bigger worry would be if Iran persuaded the Russians to give the Houthis some Onyx anti-ship missiles.
BUT...
O/T (off topic, presumably?) is another horrid PB abbreviation that really grates. It's the same as on topic (O/T) so entirely pointless and useless as an abbreviation.
JFDI, preferably a decade or two ago. It gets to the point where not fixing these transport bottlenecks has a significant effect on productivity and GDP.
Israel has invested more in missile defence than almost anyone else. To the point that the US military buys their tech*
Any ballistic missiles fired from Iran have a very, very high probability of being intercepted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_3
The Iranians know this. The Israelis know this. The Americans know this. Everybody knows.
*This is more political than technical. In US based development, money has to be be given to the right contractors, under cost plus programs designed to support a pyramid on subcontractors who then donate to the right politicians. In Israel, missile defence is urgent enough that it has to work and be affordable.
It will take time to set up and start seeing returns, but what the US does with those projects has been transformative to so many industries and spawned many new industries over the decades.
Remember that we have already spent a quarter of a billion on the planning documentation for the Thames Lower Crossing.
NY Times
PB is also the chemical symbol for lead. Just saying.
Or an abbreviation for personal best.
I’m genuinely fascinated by these two characters, they’re both very different to those at the top of the tickets, and have records as state governors to defend and to shape their vision.
In contrast, Iran and Israel lobbing missiles at each other from 600 miles away is unlikely to do much damage to either. But sabotage within Iran from Israel seems much more likely to cause damage, if chosen.
Or we could just write it out. It's really not many letters and we're not using first generation mobiles.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/08/20/will-the-ayatollahs-decide-the-us-election/
NEW THREAD
Once you know one of the two possibilities is not plausible the abbreviation makes perfect sense..
HGV mileage is down 12%
Car mileage is up 4%
Smaller commercial vehicles up 55% (I think this is mainly home delivery in the cities)
You'd certainly want to bypass the towns on the A96, but a much cheaper way to reduce crashes (which cause most of the congestion) on the A9 would be to drop the limit to 40mph at the main junctions where almost all the crashes happen.
This drop in HGV traffic in the north of Scotland, which serves the main industries like agriculture, forestry, energy, some manufacturing, is a much bigger concern than anything else imo, and not linked to the availability of road infrastructure which has actually improved quite a bit up here (particularly around Aberdeen).