BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?
And that is not the only misinformation. It claims:
"This should not come as a surprise. Moscow put its economy on to a war footing some time ago. It appointed an economist as its defence minister and retooled many of its factories to churn out vast quantities of munitions, especially explosive-tipped drones."
As if these munitions and drones were all sitting there neatly, waiting to attack us. Instead of having been used in an attritional war where Ukraine's production (and quality) of drones outpaces Russia. Where the Russians have exhausted reserves kept since the 1950s to put more tanks into the front line, over 10k of which have now been destroyed. Where vast numbers of artillery systems have been lost and continue to be lost on a daily basis. Completely misleading.
What the Allies did in WWII (the UK was spending 20% of GDP on the military, in 1945), is switching your economy to a war footing.
Russia’s production of armaments is nowhere close to matching losses.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly
I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league
Perhaps you should put your cock back in your trousers?
He is waiting for the “women” who are ogling him to put theirs back in first.
Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly
I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league
Yes. It's liberating that nubile women stare at us oldsters. Although the glow of self satisfaction wears off when one realises one's flies are undone.
You joke and the humour is appreciated but this is not pleasant. I might have to pretend to be gay to fend them off - a kind of “reverse beard”
This has only happened to me twelve or thirteen times before - overwhelming female desire for me that causes upsets, even discord. Angry husbands. Fights. Special bodyguards to get me through the crowds of excitable girls all trying to grab me
Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly
I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league
Should've gone to Specsavers.
Them and you.
Seriously, though. I thought you were in your sixties? No? The Daniel Craig of PB, and even he's only in his fifties.
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized
Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.
Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
It's already a world of hassle and pain.
It should be put into administration and nationalised. Either way the customers will end up paying, but they'll pay less to borrow if it's government owned, and less money will go overseas.
There seem to be two fears
1) investors losing their money - foreign pension funds among them. 2) the supply chain.
For the first, any sane money manager would have written off their investment long ago.
For the second, the government could lend money to cover suppliers bills and maintain operations.
With the bond and shareholders wiped out, Thames Water becomes massively profitable. And could trivially pay back the loan from the government.
Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly
I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league
Yes. It's liberating that nubile women stare at us oldsters. Although the glow of self satisfaction wears off when one realises one's flies are undone.
You joke and the humour is appreciated but this is not pleasant. I might have to pretend to be gay to fend them off - a kind of “reverse beard”
This has only happened to me twelve or thirteen times before - overwhelming female desire for me that causes upsets, even discord. Angry husbands. Fights. Special bodyguards to get me through the crowds of excitable girls all trying to grab me
Maybe you resemble Pele or they recognise you from your cartoon portrait in the Spectator.
On to more interesting matters - I saw a pice this morning which claimed that in Lee Anderson's constituency and in particular the town of Ashfield, one third of the available work force is economically inactive. I presume Anderson and his branch of Reform won't be supporting cuts to welfare and benefits.
The danger in public policy is when you treat England as a single homogenous mass. There are enormous disparities within and across regions and we need policy which is more "laser focused" (to use the vernacular) on areas which need help and support. It's an argument, perhaps, for moving the management of welfare (with the attendant monies and resources) to local councils to manage.
In Newham, ONS quotes the proportion of those economically inactive at 26.7% while in Norwich it's 12.2%.
Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly
I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league
Perhaps you should put your cock back in your trousers?
He is waiting for the “women” who are ogling him to put theirs back in first.
I was going to award @Daveyboy1961 post of the day, but now you've f*****' smashed it!
Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly
I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league
Should've gone to Specsavers.
Them and you.
Seriously, though. I thought you were in your sixties? No? The Daniel Craig of PB, and even he's only in his fifties.
LatAm are now offering to helicopter me to Montevideo. Might be the only way to avoid a riot on the plane.
Every single women is offering hard folding money to the checkin desk just to be “near” me. Absurd
Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly
I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league
Have you checked your flies?
Christ, very late to the party. I think this indicates where the worries of, ahem, late middle age repose.
The implication of the 'deal' Trump seems to be negotiating are that it's quite likely Russia will be in a position to renew its invasion in a couple of years time - with the US completely disengaged militarily.
We are yet to see anything conceded by Moscow. But trump has demanded that Zelenskyy prepare to concede territory, give away Ukraine natural resources and he's offering to lift sanctions on russia.
Any European politician who doesn't see that as a genuine risk is a fool.
The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized
Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.
Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
So because the Government doesn't want to do their jobs, i.e. the "hassle and pain" the customers have to pay more?
If the government triggers a default in Thames Water bonds, and we are very close to that, we will all pay more because the implicit guarantee or back up to these bonds will have gone and no utility or University or quasi public institution would be able to borrow at the current rates.
That might be a necessary step, it is not clear what the UK taxpayer or the customers have got out of this ability to borrow cheap (unlike the shareholders) but it is a big step and I have no doubt that there are some deeply unpleasant models in the Treasury explaining the implications.
Will we ? 9.75% already implies just that.
The reality of the water companies us that they've been plundered by largely overseas share - and bond - holders for years, at the cost of capital investment.
Either customers, or government, or both will have to fund the recapitalisation of the weakest. There's no reason that we should pay more to rebuild the value of the otherwise worthless shares and bonds. And if we do that, the regulator will award those shareholders a "reasonable return" in perpetuity on the capital that we have paid to rebuild.
The model was deeply flawed from the beginning. It allowed the utilities to have a return on relevant assets at a level fixed by the regulator. For a long period after 2008 this was substantially higher than the gilt rate allowing companies to pile up debt in the certain assurance that they would make an additional return (profit) on the deal. Very nice for the shareholders, not great for the rest of us.
Now that interest rates are at more normal rates the utilities whine and claim they need a higher return, that is larger bills for the customers, to finance the cost of the borrowing they took on when it was a no brainer and guaranteed profit. It was utterly predictable that this would happen at some point and any regulator with half a brain would have sought to restrict borrowing, even if that required additional powers. But we had OFWAT instead. And they are not alone.
BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?
More likely someone copied the first thing they found online.
One of the reasons for the success of New Labour was their press operation. They realised that most hacks are lazy - so they fed pre-written stories to match their messaging grid.
In the age of “AI” how many of those pieces are written by asking ChatGPT?
The Ukraine war did make me consider how Brits would react if we were in their shoes. Let’s imagine that France had invaded Kent and Sussex, having taken the Channel Islands already.
An awful lot of Ukrainians have given up their normal lives to go and fight - and die. Would we have done the same?
I’m having breakfast in Royal Tunbridge Wells and I’m struggling to conceive of kids from up north getting motivated enough to defend this very well to do spa town.
A more relevant question would be whether the kids from London would have fled the country or been willing to defend it.
The usual issues of immigration and housing having and effect on this perhaps.
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The money has to come from somewhere
If you drove it into administration you wipe out the equity holders (pension funds) but they have mainly written off their investments anyway. And the funding then comes from tax payers.
Ultimately all funding for utilities comes from customers or taxpayers. There is no other source.
Trump's tariffs are enough to put Mexico into recession and cut growth pretty much everywhere, including the United States. What a genius.
Slightly weirdly, the UK is forecast to have the third highest growth of the countries listed but Reeves is on the job. FWIW I think that many of these forecasts are on the optimistic side, including ours.
BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?
I don't think it's Trumpy disinformation - I think it's laziness or the writer being spread too thin. Was it perhaps written by an intern, or AI, and the author topped and tailed it?
It's Frank Gardner who is a 30 year BBC veteran, so should be better.
It also has things like:
Let's start with the numbers. According to the Kiel Institute, which meticulously tracks these things, Europe spends just 0.1% of its wealth on helping to defend Ukraine, while the US has been spending 0.15%.
There's the change over time not accounted for, the confusion between "wealth" and "GDP" ie stock vs flow, and no clarity on the period meant for "spends just 0.1% etc" ie is it 0.1% per annum or 0.1% of one year's GDP over 3+ years.
The latter has been used as a unit by the media, so it needs to be clarified.
Really, this is just quality journalism not being applied.
*stares moodily across the moonlit runways of Sao Paolo airport*
Only those of us who have seen the true horror of war, smelt the reek of rotten death, gazed at the severed limbs and ruined cities - only we privileged yet traumatised veterans and heroes get to speak of this
WAR
And I say pack the whining brats off to the trenches, pronto
Stand back a bit and look at what's happening. Take Germany.
Germany is about to rearm big-time. Due to fears about Trump withdrawing the US from Europe.
The second biggest political party in Germany is now one made up of neo-Nazis. Helped along by the endorsement of Vance.
We've seen this before haven't we? (Though not with the active agency of the US).
When countries are placed under stress, there's no knowing what could happen.
The Ukraine war did make me consider how Brits would react if we were in their shoes. Let’s imagine that France had invaded Kent and Sussex, having taken the Channel Islands already.
An awful lot of Ukrainians have given up their normal lives to go and fight - and die. Would we have done the same?
I’m having breakfast in Royal Tunbridge Wells and I’m struggling to conceive of kids from up north getting motivated enough to defend this very well to do spa town.
A more relevant question would be whether the kids from London would have fled the country or been willing to defend it.
The usual issues of immigration and housing having and effect on this perhaps.
I think that in the event of war being inevitable you'd have young men queuing up at recruiting offices. And young women, too.
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The money has to come from somewhere
If you drove it into administration you wipe out the equity holders (pension funds) but they have mainly written off their investments anyway. And the funding then comes from tax payers.
Ultimately all funding for utilities comes from customers or taxpayers. There is no other source.
If Thames went bankrupt, the removal of the debt burden would mean that the company would be making more money than it is spending.
Profits, they used to call them. Provided they are stopped from re-financialisation…
WTAF put the cabinet on the road side of the pavement
Then I saw it was Kingston Telecom (as Hull always had its own telecom company for “reasons”) and it makes perfect sense they are utter idiots
“Reasons” are because it was set up by the council when all telecom companies were local and they refused to accept the acquisition offer from (I believe) the post office that ultimately created British telecom
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized
Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.
Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
So because the Government doesn't want to do their jobs, i.e. the "hassle and pain" the customers have to pay more?
If the government triggers a default in Thames Water bonds, and we are very close to that, we will all pay more because the implicit guarantee or back up to these bonds will have gone and no utility or University or quasi public institution would be able to borrow at the current rates.
That might be a necessary step, it is not clear what the UK taxpayer or the customers have got out of this ability to borrow cheap (unlike the shareholders) but it is a big step and I have no doubt that there are some deeply unpleasant models in the Treasury explaining the implications.
Will we ? 9.75% already implies just that.
The reality of the water companies us that they've been plundered by largely overseas share - and bond - holders for years, at the cost of capital investment.
Either customers, or government, or both will have to fund the recapitalisation of the weakest. There's no reason that we should pay more to rebuild the value of the otherwise worthless shares and bonds. And if we do that, the regulator will award those shareholders a "reasonable return" in perpetuity on the capital that we have paid to rebuild.
The model was deeply flawed from the beginning. It allowed the utilities to have a return on relevant assets at a level fixed by the regulator. For a long period after 2008 this was substantially higher than the gilt rate allowing companies to pile up debt in the certain assurance that they would make an additional return (profit) on the deal. Very nice for the shareholders, not great for the rest of us.
Now that interest rates are at more normal rates the utilities whine and claim they need a higher return, that is larger bills for the customers, to finance the cost of the borrowing they took on when it was a no brainer and guaranteed profit. It was utterly predictable that this would happen at some point and any regulator with half a brain would have sought to restrict borrowing, even if that required additional powers. But we had OFWAT instead. And they are not alone.
Not infrequently the lenders were connected parties to the shareholders, I think ? Macquarie is one that probably played that game.
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized
Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.
Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
So because the Government doesn't want to do their jobs, i.e. the "hassle and pain" the customers have to pay more?
If the government triggers a default in Thames Water bonds, and we are very close to that, we will all pay more because the implicit guarantee or back up to these bonds will have gone and no utility or University or quasi public institution would be able to borrow at the current rates.
That might be a necessary step, it is not clear what the UK taxpayer or the customers have got out of this ability to borrow cheap (unlike the shareholders) but it is a big step and I have no doubt that there are some deeply unpleasant models in the Treasury explaining the implications.
I'm sorry that's just ridiculous. Let them go bankrupt, let the bond holders take a big haircut and allow the markets to enforce discipline on utility companies. If these companies aren't viable in private ownership structures then so be it but I think they probably will be but the lenders will put a stop to the huge dividend payments and force more money to be spent on infrastructure upgrades which will allow for capital growth.
The taxpayer can't stand behind these irresponsible companies and lenders. They all need to learn their lessons.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized
Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.
Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
So because the Government doesn't want to do their jobs, i.e. the "hassle and pain" the customers have to pay more?
If the government triggers a default in Thames Water bonds, and we are very close to that, we will all pay more because the implicit guarantee or back up to these bonds will have gone and no utility or University or quasi public institution would be able to borrow at the current rates.
That might be a necessary step, it is not clear what the UK taxpayer or the customers have got out of this ability to borrow cheap (unlike the shareholders) but it is a big step and I have no doubt that there are some deeply unpleasant models in the Treasury explaining the implications.
I'm sorry that's just ridiculous. Let them go bankrupt, let the bond holders take a big haircut and allow the markets to enforce discipline on utility companies. If these companies aren't viable in private ownership structures then so be it but I think they probably will be but the lenders will put a stop to the huge dividend payments and force more money to be spent on infrastructure upgrades which will allow for capital growth.
The taxpayer can't stand behind these irresponsible companies and lenders. They all need to learn their lessons.
I agree. I am just pointing out that it is not a cost free option and that is why the government has not acted already. There will be consequences and they will not be all good. It is yet another consequence of running an economy on never ending mountains of debt. One day we will have to try paying for what we want.
The implication of the 'deal' Trump seems to be negotiating are that it's quite likely Russia will be in a position to renew its invasion in a couple of years time - with the US completely disengaged militarily.
We are yet to see anything conceded by Moscow. But trump has demanded that Zelenskyy prepare to concede territory, give away Ukraine natural resources and he's offering to lift sanctions on russia.
Any European politician who doesn't see that as a genuine risk is a fool.
The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians
Peter Zeihan has made a very interesting account of the various layers of pro-Russian influencers within the US. Starting with the "Useful Idiot" category (Marjorie Taylor Greene, for instance) right up to people who are actively, and knowingly, doing Putin's business.
It should be said that he is the very opposite of a conspiracy-monger. But has been led, ineluctably, to the conclusion that the USA is currently engaged in a process of destroying its own ability to secure it own interests.
BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?
More likely someone copied the first thing they found online.
One of the reasons for the success of New Labour was their press operation. They realised that most hacks are lazy - so they fed pre-written stories to match their messaging grid.
In the age of “AI” how many of those pieces are written by asking ChatGPT?
Although I just went to a breakfast meeting with Fraser Nelson who is doing some seriously impressive work
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized
Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.
Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
So because the Government doesn't want to do their jobs, i.e. the "hassle and pain" the customers have to pay more?
If the government triggers a default in Thames Water bonds, and we are very close to that, we will all pay more because the implicit guarantee or back up to these bonds will have gone and no utility or University or quasi public institution would be able to borrow at the current rates.
That might be a necessary step, it is not clear what the UK taxpayer or the customers have got out of this ability to borrow cheap (unlike the shareholders) but it is a big step and I have no doubt that there are some deeply unpleasant models in the Treasury explaining the implications.
Will we ? 9.75% already implies just that.
The reality of the water companies us that they've been plundered by largely overseas share - and bond - holders for years, at the cost of capital investment.
Either customers, or government, or both will have to fund the recapitalisation of the weakest. There's no reason that we should pay more to rebuild the value of the otherwise worthless shares and bonds. And if we do that, the regulator will award those shareholders a "reasonable return" in perpetuity on the capital that we have paid to rebuild.
The model was deeply flawed from the beginning. It allowed the utilities to have a return on relevant assets at a level fixed by the regulator. For a long period after 2008 this was substantially higher than the gilt rate allowing companies to pile up debt in the certain assurance that they would make an additional return (profit) on the deal. Very nice for the shareholders, not great for the rest of us.
Now that interest rates are at more normal rates the utilities whine and claim they need a higher return, that is larger bills for the customers, to finance the cost of the borrowing they took on when it was a no brainer and guaranteed profit. It was utterly predictable that this would happen at some point and any regulator with half a brain would have sought to restrict borrowing, even if that required additional powers. But we had OFWAT instead. And they are not alone.
Has there ever been a case where the 'debt is wealth' mentality not led to long term financial problems ?
BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?
Probably it's not just you. The BBC have taken a nose dive in the last year or so and they're now scared of their own shadow. A real shame because they're leaving a huge hole which is being filled with crap
The implication of the 'deal' Trump seems to be negotiating are that it's quite likely Russia will be in a position to renew its invasion in a couple of years time - with the US completely disengaged militarily.
We are yet to see anything conceded by Moscow. But trump has demanded that Zelenskyy prepare to concede territory, give away Ukraine natural resources and he's offering to lift sanctions on russia.
Any European politician who doesn't see that as a genuine risk is a fool.
The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians
Peter Zeihan has made a very interesting account of the various layers of pro-Russian influencers within the US. Starting with the "Useful Idiot" category (Marjorie Taylor Greene, for instance) right up to people who are actively, and knowingly, doing Putin's business.
It should be said that he is the very opposite of a conspiracy-monger. But has been led, ineluctably, to the conclusion that the USA is currently engaged in a process of destroying its own ability to secure it own interests.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
The implication of the 'deal' Trump seems to be negotiating are that it's quite likely Russia will be in a position to renew its invasion in a couple of years time - with the US completely disengaged militarily.
We are yet to see anything conceded by Moscow. But trump has demanded that Zelenskyy prepare to concede territory, give away Ukraine natural resources and he's offering to lift sanctions on russia.
Any European politician who doesn't see that as a genuine risk is a fool.
The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians
Peter Zeihan has made a very interesting account of the various layers of pro-Russian influencers within the US. Starting with the "Useful Idiot" category (Marjorie Taylor Greene, for instance) right up to people who are actively, and knowingly, doing Putin's business.
It should be said that he is the very opposite of a conspiracy-monger. But has been led, ineluctably, to the conclusion that the USA is currently engaged in a process of destroying its own ability to secure it own interests.
He could be right, but isn't what we're seeing actually just a process of the US turning away from a policy of American world dominance and toward a policy of America withdrawing behind a wall of steel and perhaps just dominating its region? Trump may be an extreme example of that, but policy was already heading that way under Biden.
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized
Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.
Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
So because the Government doesn't want to do their jobs, i.e. the "hassle and pain" the customers have to pay more?
If the government triggers a default in Thames Water bonds, and we are very close to that, we will all pay more because the implicit guarantee or back up to these bonds will have gone and no utility or University or quasi public institution would be able to borrow at the current rates.
That might be a necessary step, it is not clear what the UK taxpayer or the customers have got out of this ability to borrow cheap (unlike the shareholders) but it is a big step and I have no doubt that there are some deeply unpleasant models in the Treasury explaining the implications.
I'm sorry that's just ridiculous. Let them go bankrupt, let the bond holders take a big haircut and allow the markets to enforce discipline on utility companies. If these companies aren't viable in private ownership structures then so be it but I think they probably will be but the lenders will put a stop to the huge dividend payments and force more money to be spent on infrastructure upgrades which will allow for capital growth.
The taxpayer can't stand behind these irresponsible companies and lenders. They all need to learn their lessons.
I agree. I am just pointing out that it is not a cost free option and that is why the government has not acted already. There will be consequences and they will not be all good. It is yet another consequence of running an economy on never ending mountains of debt. One day we will have to try paying for what we want.
It's a point though. Any private sector entity enjoying an implicit government guarantee of debts should be paying for that. If they aren't it's a freebie from taxpayers to shareholders.
An awful lot of Ukrainians have given up their normal lives to go and fight - and die. Would we have done the same?
Context: if the UK had been part of France by force for a century or more, and 3-4 million had been starved to death in living memory, followed by independence, and the South-East occupied since 2014, and a police state imposed with killings, thousands of forced convictions into the French Army, and 10s of thousands of children stolen to be brought up as French, then I think many would give up their normal lives, yes.
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized
Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.
Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
So because the Government doesn't want to do their jobs, i.e. the "hassle and pain" the customers have to pay more?
If the government triggers a default in Thames Water bonds, and we are very close to that, we will all pay more because the implicit guarantee or back up to these bonds will have gone and no utility or University or quasi public institution would be able to borrow at the current rates.
That might be a necessary step, it is not clear what the UK taxpayer or the customers have got out of this ability to borrow cheap (unlike the shareholders) but it is a big step and I have no doubt that there are some deeply unpleasant models in the Treasury explaining the implications.
I'm sorry that's just ridiculous. Let them go bankrupt, let the bond holders take a big haircut and allow the markets to enforce discipline on utility companies. If these companies aren't viable in private ownership structures then so be it but I think they probably will be but the lenders will put a stop to the huge dividend payments and force more money to be spent on infrastructure upgrades which will allow for capital growth.
The taxpayer can't stand behind these irresponsible companies and lenders. They all need to learn their lessons.
I agree. I am just pointing out that it is not a cost free option and that is why the government has not acted already. There will be consequences and they will not be all good. It is yet another consequence of running an economy on never ending mountains of debt. One day we will have to try paying for what we want.
All options are costly - but some are more costly than others. Original privatisation was sold as a win/win for all parties. Delusional then; delusional now.
I suspect the reason the government aren't acting is that they don't fully grasp the issues, and outside advice they are getting is likely to be sympathetic to City rather than government interests.
My late mother, who would be in her late 80s, grew up in WWII and the period of conscription afterwards. As a result, she was very opposed to conscription. Whenever the geopolitical situation looked bad, she’d worry that I would be conscripted. Even when I was in my late forties, with various joint injuries, and clearly of no use to any fighting force, she’d worry about this. But maybe there are fewer of that generation left and the over-65s are dominated by those who don’t remember the war, but grew up on romanticised images of it?
My Dad was a regular in the REME in the 1950s. He always said the national service boys just got in the way and largely did more harm than good.
WTAF put the cabinet on the road side of the pavement
Then I saw it was Kingston Telecom (as Hull always had its own telecom company for “reasons”) and it makes perfect sense they are utter idiots
I'm a big fan of Kingston Telecom. They were customers of mine (decades ago) and accidentally paid me over £80,000. It was my birthday as well. Sadly I owned up and paid it back. A normal invoice from me would have been under £1000.
I had Misrad HaBitahon do that. Paid the same (small) bill twice. Weren't in a hurry to get it back but they do seem to be well financed these days given the amounts they are burning through.
A really stark line between Gen X and Baby boomers. I'd imagine those 40+ wouldn't be conscripted either... I wonder if the real dividing line is being retired?
Once you're retired you have a bit more time to worry about the state of the world, and perhaps a bit more fearful of losing what you've got?
And it's the inverse for something like climate change.
Lest we forget, it's not that long ago the the British Prime Blooming Minister thought that reintroducing National Service was a pretty neat idea.
And on the climate change issue, Kemi B has given up (fighting Reform);
Kemi Badenoch has said it is "impossible" for the UK to meet its net zero target by 2050 - a goal set by a previous Conservative government...
The Conservative leader did not set out a replacement for the target, but her words mark a sharp break from years of political consensus.
Was not Nation Service Rishi in his headless chicken mode? Do we take things seriously said by non-serious politicians?
And Kemi is ... Kemi. Does she present any evidence that this is impossible? We seem still to be on track.
I think she means it is "impossible" to support it and remain Tory leader.
Having read the piece, I think she means "it is impossible", which is what she says. That may indeed be something she feels she has to say to remain Tory leader .
More pertinently, perhaps she does believe it is impossible, or doesn't believe it and is dog whistling Reform on a slightly different frequency.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The money has to come from somewhere
If you drove it into administration you wipe out the equity holders (pension funds) but they have mainly written off their investments anyway. And the funding then comes from tax payers.
Ultimately all funding for utilities comes from customers or taxpayers. There is no other source.
If Thames went bankrupt, the removal of the debt burden would mean that the company would be making more money than it is spending.
Profits, they used to call them. Provided they are stopped from re-financialisation…
The operating company is already profitable. That won’t change
The debt comes from pension funds investors. Yes you can wipe them out (and they have already written down the loans to market)
This new debt is being used to refinance some of the loans (at an haircut) and provide working capital. It is not being paid out to equity providers.
Let’s put it like this (ignoring solvency law for simplicity).
Operating company is worth 100 Current debt is 200 Equity is -100
No new investor will buy the shares - even if they buy for zero they immediately have a loss.
So you borrow 90 to payback the debt at 45% of face value. The debt investors accept that because (a) they get some of their money back; (b) they get a higher interest rate; and (c) they get an equity participation to make back some of their losses of things go well.
The new capital structure is therefore:
Operating company: 100 Debt: 90 Equity: 10
The new investors then pay 10 for the equity, of which 5 goes to the current investors (they need some incentive to accept the deal vs bankruptcy) and 5 goes to the current debt holders who are losing money. The current debt holders piece is as equity, the current equity investors is in cash.
That’s the way it should be: equity holders largely wiped out; debt holders take a big haircut; the company recapitalised and operations continue unaffected.
There’s no chance of that . With Trump in the WH Netenyahu has a free pass to do whatever he likes , he could wipe out another 50,000 Palestinians and Trump would be quite happy .
The implication of the 'deal' Trump seems to be negotiating are that it's quite likely Russia will be in a position to renew its invasion in a couple of years time - with the US completely disengaged militarily.
We are yet to see anything conceded by Moscow. But trump has demanded that Zelenskyy prepare to concede territory, give away Ukraine natural resources and he's offering to lift sanctions on russia.
Any European politician who doesn't see that as a genuine risk is a fool.
The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians
Peter Zeihan has made a very interesting account of the various layers of pro-Russian influencers within the US. Starting with the "Useful Idiot" category (Marjorie Taylor Greene, for instance) right up to people who are actively, and knowingly, doing Putin's business.
It should be said that he is the very opposite of a conspiracy-monger. But has been led, ineluctably, to the conclusion that the USA is currently engaged in a process of destroying its own ability to secure it own interests.
He could be right, but isn't what we're seeing actually just a process of the US turning away from a policy of American world dominance and toward a policy of America withdrawing behind a wall of steel and perhaps just dominating its region? Trump may be an extreme example of that, but policy was already heading that way under Biden.
Yes and no. Yes it is doing that, but it's doing other things as well
The geopolitical shift (Trump's playbook). It is, as you said, resiling from world hegemony (and dynamiting the West in the process), which results in Ukraine being handed to the Russians and Europe having to defend itself
The dictatorial shift (Yarvin's playbook). Gut the organs of state, replace them with incompetent yes-men, ignore the courts. This causes problems which haven't been internalised: for example if NOAA is gutted, where does the armed forces get its weather reports? Starlink? Oh...
So yes you are right, but there is more going on than that
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?
Probably it's not just you. The BBC have taken a nose dive in the last year or so and they're now scared of their own shadow. A real shame because they're leaving a huge hole which is being filled with crap
Still at the forefront of Royal Family pr though.
The death of the last BoB pilot (who was Irish btw) and hourly bulletins on the Princess of Wales Guinness drinking activities pretty much a perfect news day for the BBC.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?
More likely someone copied the first thing they found online.
One of the reasons for the success of New Labour was their press operation. They realised that most hacks are lazy - so they fed pre-written stories to match their messaging grid.
In the age of “AI” how many of those pieces are written by asking ChatGPT?
Although I just went to a breakfast meeting with Fraser Nelson who is doing some seriously impressive work
Details plz? Even a summary would be nice. You can PM me for privacy reasons if you like.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?
More likely someone copied the first thing they found online.
One of the reasons for the success of New Labour was their press operation. They realised that most hacks are lazy - so they fed pre-written stories to match their messaging grid.
In the age of “AI” how many of those pieces are written by asking ChatGPT?
Although I just went to a breakfast meeting with Fraser Nelson who is doing some seriously impressive work
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Trump's tariffs are enough to put Mexico into recession and cut growth pretty much everywhere, including the United States. What a genius.
Slightly weirdly, the UK is forecast to have the third highest growth of the countries listed but Reeves is on the job. FWIW I think that many of these forecasts are on the optimistic side, including ours.
Funny how Reeves is to blame when there are rubbish numbers for the UK, but suddenly powerless when the UK is doing better (relatively).
The fact is Chancellors have very little influence over short term economic conditions. Even something drastic like Brexit is difficult to isolate and quantify. The near immaterial changes that Reeves has made - even employer NICs wasn't particularly big - are very unlikely to be picked up in GDP numbers.
Better to judge them on the long term policies they have put in place. That's why the cancellation of HS2 is the one thing I'm genuinely pissed off about Sunak. The lack of reform on things like Council Tax, Stamp Duty, Fuel Duty, regional capital investment, social care, energy markets etc etc is what is starting to annoy me about this government.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
Does the UK have a practice of promotion at or just before retirement?
I think I recall that the US Navy makes (or made in recentish historical periods) a lot of people into Small Admirals just before the out-chucking ceremony.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
Does the UK have a practice of promotion at or just before retirement?
I think I recall that the US Navy makes (or made in recentish historical periods) a lot of people into Small Admirals just before the out-chucking ceremony.
Used to be, maybe still is, a regular occurrence in the public sector with implications for final-salary linked pensions. Used as an (expensive) way of easing out people long after their useful sell-by date.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
To add an account - and I suspect this may be a not-uncommon experience in Ukraine given the brutality (eg Russian constant use of chemical weapons) - one of my Grandfather's brothers came back from WW1 in shellshock, and later killed himself.
Another impact may be domestic violence, which flows down generations in families as each new cohort learn that it is 'normal'. According to my grandmother, that applied to my Grandfather (died in the 1960s).
When human beings are exposed to brutality, it comes out at the other end ... somehow.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
OF-3 and above can use their rank titles after retirement if they've got 15 years in. Apart from cavalry regiments who have their own mad rules that nobody understands but involves horses.
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The whole thing stinks. The Government should be providing capital in exchange for equity, not this socialised losses nonsense.
The company is worth about zilch - but are desperate to not end up nationalized
Equally the Government doesn’t want them nationalized as it opens a whole world of hassle and pain.
Hence giving that very expensive loan to keep the can going down the road a bit longer
So because the Government doesn't want to do their jobs, i.e. the "hassle and pain" the customers have to pay more?
Why should you (in the NE I believe) pay more tax so I can have cheaper water?
You could say the same about every infrastructure project. It's how a nation state works.
And the issue is always politicians underinvest in infrastructure because there aren’t as many votes in it as in nurse’s wages
Yet there have been a string of super-expensive infrastructure projects, and nurses remain poorly paid
Sexy infrastructure projects like train sets and hospitals. Not boring things like pipes and sewers.
Where I live is now almost permanently dug up due to long overdue sewer and gas pipe replacement. At one time we also had a steady stream of white tankers full of sh*t driving up and down the high street 24/7
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
Does the UK have a practice of promotion at or just before retirement?
I think I recall that the US Navy makes (or made in recentish historical periods) a lot of people into Small Admirals just before the out-chucking ceremony.
Not as far as I know; AFAIK he was under-age, from a minor public school in WWI, so 'eligible' for promotion..... and lucky to survive. In WWII he was initially told 'too old' but was accepted in the Pioneer Corp and then quickly promoted.
My post was regraded upwards in the NHS about six months before I retired, which recovered the money I'd lost by being unable to do on-call duties any more; we'd moved out of reasonable travelling distance.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
OF-3 and above can use their rank titles after retirement if they've got 15 years in. Apart from cavalry regiments who have their own mad rules that nobody understands but involves horses.
Captain Tom Moore seems to have started using his WWII rank long after he left the Army. However, I suspect other people might have been involved.
Does the UK have a practice of promotion at or just before retirement?
Yes, until recently. It was primarily used as a pension bumping bribe to get people out with no fuss.
I got promoted to Commander on my very last day of service to get rid of me because they were concerned that I was going to top myself on MoD property which would have caused a great deal of unwelcome and tiresome paperwork.
Lot of young women staring at me in Sao paolo terminal 3. But then this is Brazil, isn’t it? women are so liberated sexually they feel able to express their lust. Quite openly
I’m used to be being ogled but this is a new league
You are not used to being ogled. You are an old git and no one younger than you thinks of you as anything other than an old git who might be friends with, or perhaps reminds them of their father.
Always remember that.
Dara O'Brian did a bit at a gig I went to where he described going out after a show with some students, then back to theirs for a party. He suddenly realised that not a single one of them saw him as potential sexual partner - he was simply someone of their parents generation who they were having a laugh with. Apparently it was a big moment for him.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
Does the UK have a practice of promotion at or just before retirement?
I think I recall that the US Navy makes (or made in recentish historical periods) a lot of people into Small Admirals just before the out-chucking ceremony.
Not as far as I know; AFAIK he was under-age, from a minor public school in WWI, so 'eligible' for promotion..... and lucky to survive. In WWII he was initially told 'too old' but was accepted in the Pioneer Corp and then quickly promoted.
My post was regraded upwards in the NHS about six months before I retired, which recovered the money I'd lost by being unable to do on-call duties any more; we'd moved out of reasonable travelling distance.
This apparently used to be common in the Civil Service, as was making the final year's bonus consolidated (and therefore pensionable). I believe this is one of the reasons they moved to a Career Average Revalued scheme
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
OF-3 and above can use their rank titles after retirement if they've got 15 years in. Apart from cavalry regiments who have their own mad rules that nobody understands but involves horses.
Captain Tom Moore seems to have started using his WWII rank long after he left the Army. However, I suspect other people might have been involved.
We were told last year that it would be a mistake to drive Thames into administration, as it would push up the cost of borrowing for the industry.
Yesterday Thames was allowed to borrow another £3bn at an interest rate of 9.75%. To be funded by customers, of course.
The money has to come from somewhere
If you drove it into administration you wipe out the equity holders (pension funds) but they have mainly written off their investments anyway. And the funding then comes from tax payers.
Ultimately all funding for utilities comes from customers or taxpayers. There is no other source.
Of course. Someone has to pay for it. But if they are no longer private sector then the money that is provided either by customers or by taxpayers can be spent on the actual infrastructure and service rather than on dividends for shareholders.
I am not anti-private enterprise. But there are two important caveats to that.
Firstly there are certain things that are just not suited to privatisation. I would suggest that our water cycle is one of them. It is not justproviding a service, many private organsiations can do that bit fine. It is also stewardship of the whole hydro cycle with all its environmental issues. Clearly the water companies have shown they are unable to do that to a reasonable standard and still make a profit.
Secondly, we need to adopt more of the French system of private involvement in public services. Very high regulation with legal backing including criminal punishment for individuals who fail to adhere to the regulations. And a strict limit on profits. Enough for the companies to be willing to invest but any excess above a set percentage goes back to the state for reinvestment.
I just don't think the current water arrangements are capable of being run in a way that suits both the customers, the environment and the shareholders. One of them has to give and to my mind it should be the shareholders.
steve richards @steverichards14 · 2h A former member of OBR committee quoted in the Guardian sums up the government’s chosen contortion: “We’ve got ourselves into a, frankly, pretty ridiculous position, where we’re doing fiscal fine-tuning to control the OBR forecast five years ahead.”
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
OF-3 and above can use their rank titles after retirement if they've got 15 years in. Apart from cavalry regiments who have their own mad rules that nobody understands but involves horses.
Captain Tom Moore seems to have started using his WWII rank long after he left the Army. However, I suspect other people might have been involved.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
OF-3 and above can use their rank titles after retirement if they've got 15 years in. Apart from cavalry regiments who have their own mad rules that nobody understands but involves horses.
Captain Tom Moore seems to have started using his WWII rank long after he left the Army. However, I suspect other people might have been involved.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
OF-3 and above can use their rank titles after retirement if they've got 15 years in. Apart from cavalry regiments who have their own mad rules that nobody understands but involves horses.
Captain Tom Moore seems to have started using his WWII rank long after he left the Army. However, I suspect other people might have been involved.
I think in his case it was ok as it was rather a long time ago and he was now very old. The idea of Captain Hastings (in Poirot) using the title Captain in everyday life was rather odd.
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
OF-3 and above can use their rank titles after retirement if they've got 15 years in. Apart from cavalry regiments who have their own mad rules that nobody understands but involves horses.
Captain Tom Moore seems to have started using his WWII rank long after he left the Army. However, I suspect other people might have been involved.
Probably the daughter's idea!
Talking of whom.
Is that Trump's new Federal Reserve chairwoman?
I thought Leon was posting pictures of the women staring at his flaccid undercarriage.
Given that we are on Brazil, is anyone familiar with the extent to which they are following a Trumpist agenda?
Given the religion stats, extreme inequality, a Christendom worldview etc, it is likely to be fertile ground for such.
I know the religion stats, where in the 1970s it was 91% RC: 5% Evangelical, and is now 51% RC: 31% Evangelical. "Nominal agnostic / atheist" in the census is ~5% only. Therefore a Christendom type framing of society's view of itself is likely.
From a report in the Graun, there are attempts to "do a USA-Right" (but more so) around abortion, aiming to criminalise abortion after rape. AFAIK in the USA one way it is done is by effectively banning abortion, and not putting in a rape-exception (eg Missouri up until the recent ballot initiative).
Some context around the Online Safety Bill and Leon's many bans ?
There is something deeply wrong when a law passed with cross-party consensus and endorsed by Britain's most trusted charities has made it impossible to run an internet forum for hamster owners. https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1901948965412630655
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Some context around the Online Safety Bill and Leon's many bans ?
There is something deeply wrong when a law passed with cross-party consensus and endorsed by Britain's most trusted charities has made it impossible to run an internet forum for hamster owners. https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1901948965412630655
I've always opposed the Online Safety Act, but I never realised just how mad it was.
Every site that allows users to post content is in scope of the law and is forced to carry out a risk assessment.
There’s no chance of that . With Trump in the WH Netenyahu has a free pass to do whatever he likes , he could wipe out another 50,000 Palestinians and Trump would be quite happy .
The Gazan's need an effective PR company now the US has gone rogue. Some memes that point out that gratuitously killing 300- nearly all women and children -isn't only unacceptable but grotesque.
The Israelis were quick off the mark with 'The Biggest Massacre Since the Holocaust'. The Gazans can trump that several times over. Something that will penetrate the sensibilities of the West and the Americans. It really wont be difficult. A 72 sheet poster on Broadway and another in Cambridge Circus would be a good start
Ruth Deyermond @ruthdeyermond.bsky.social · 4m Today's Putin-Trump conversation will be about Russia-US relations and what they each think they can extort from Kyiv, not peace in Ukraine. That can only come with an end to Russian aggression.
BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?
I don't think it's Trumpy disinformation - I think it's laziness or the writer being spread too thin. Was it perhaps written by an intern, or AI, and the author topped and tailed it?
It's Frank Gardner who is a 30 year BBC veteran, so should be better.
It also has things like:
Let's start with the numbers. According to the Kiel Institute, which meticulously tracks these things, Europe spends just 0.1% of its wealth on helping to defend Ukraine, while the US has been spending 0.15%.
There's the change over time not accounted for, the confusion between "wealth" and "GDP" ie stock vs flow, and no clarity on the period meant for "spends just 0.1% etc" ie is it 0.1% per annum or 0.1% of one year's GDP over 3+ years.
The latter has been used as a unit by the media, so it needs to be clarified.
Really, this is just quality journalism not being applied.
You're probably right, but it ties in with Trump's claim that the US has given more to Ukraine than Europe has, which just isn't true.
And the BBC is giving a lot of time to American Trump backers, , and is quite hesitant about being critical, in a way that it isn't with other similar foreign leaders (eg Orban).
BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?
I don't think it's Trumpy disinformation - I think it's laziness or the writer being spread too thin. Was it perhaps written by an intern, or AI, and the author topped and tailed it?
It's Frank Gardner who is a 30 year BBC veteran, so should be better.
It also has things like:
Let's start with the numbers. According to the Kiel Institute, which meticulously tracks these things, Europe spends just 0.1% of its wealth on helping to defend Ukraine, while the US has been spending 0.15%.
There's the change over time not accounted for, the confusion between "wealth" and "GDP" ie stock vs flow, and no clarity on the period meant for "spends just 0.1% etc" ie is it 0.1% per annum or 0.1% of one year's GDP over 3+ years.
The latter has been used as a unit by the media, so it needs to be clarified.
Really, this is just quality journalism not being applied.
You're probably right, but it ties in with Trump's claim that the US has given more to Ukraine than Europe has, which just isn't true.
And the BBC is giving a lot of time to American Trump backers, , and is quite hesitant about being critical, in a way that it isn't with other similar foreign leaders (eg Orban).
Yes - Trump is a congenital liar, who only engages with the voices in his head. Or the voices outside his head from the MAGA Mushrooms, who only repeat what he has told them.
The Trumpologists who seem to climb furthest up my nose are the ones from Republicans Abroad (or whatever it is called now).
Conscription ended in 1960 , with National Service ending in 1963. That is, 65 and 62 years ago.
The Silent Generation were subject to it; the boomers had people around them subject to it when they were young. I'm Gen X, but I had adults around me who had been conscripted when I was growing up (eg to Malaya).
I think the question is a bit of a media-created red herring in that even the armed forces don't like it - they lose more from looking after them for short term conscription than any gain. So if we get to a situwation where it is necessary, it will be necessary.
It will be major expansion of reserves first.
The vast majority of the silent generation wouldn't have done National Service either.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
My father was one of the last do it. He was in the RAF Education Branch in Aden and, like all of his other interactions with the working class, hated it. The did hand out promotions like crab ointment in the Education Branch though. He made it to Flt. Lt. in 18 months which isn't quite Mordaunt pace but still impressive.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
Wars will tend to accelerate progress up the ranks. Enoch Powell famously went from Private to Brigadier during WW2.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
Gen. Nathan Twining was promoted 22 times from 1916 to 1953. He went from being a Private in the Oregon Nation Guard to a USAF 4 Star and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
One of my uncles went from 'the ranks' to commissioned officer in both World Wars. Fought in France in WWi and East & North Africa in WWII. Described on his tombstone as 'Major', although he'd long since left the Army.
OF-3 and above can use their rank titles after retirement if they've got 15 years in. Apart from cavalry regiments who have their own mad rules that nobody understands but involves horses.
Captain Tom Moore seems to have started using his WWII rank long after he left the Army. However, I suspect other people might have been involved.
Mainwaring: "Oh you’d stick up for him wouldn’t you? You both went to public school didn’t you?" Wilson: "You know sir, I can’t help feeling that you’ve got a bit of a chip on your shoulder about that." Mainwaring: "There’s no chip on my shoulder. I’ll tell you what there is though, three pips and don’t you forget it."
BTW this BBC article is misleading as it has a chart showing the US giving a greater share of GDP to Ukraine than many European countries. But it separates the EU aid from the direct bilateral aid. If you include eg the German share of EU aid to Ukraine, it has given a greater share of GDP than the US.
And that's before you consider the price tag of the US military aid to Ukraine, a large proportion of which was getting rid of old stockpiles.
Is it just me, or is the BBC tending towards repeating Trumpy disinformation these days?
More likely someone copied the first thing they found online.
One of the reasons for the success of New Labour was their press operation. They realised that most hacks are lazy - so they fed pre-written stories to match their messaging grid.
In the age of “AI” how many of those pieces are written by asking ChatGPT?
Although I just went to a breakfast meeting with Fraser Nelson who is doing some seriously impressive work
If you remember back he was I think the first in the media to identify that there were somewhere between 8-10 million economically inactive. At the time, following his piece in the Spectator, he was told that he got his sums wrong, it can't be that anywhere near that many. He had made some assumptions that in some areas might have overstated things, but over areas it understated things and it turns out it was probably about right. The fact nobody actually knows the real figure also quite telling.
I wonder how much of the debate being had today has been influenced by the fact that the giant numbers that have come from his bean counting have become common knowledge.
Comments
Russia’s production of armaments is nowhere close to matching losses.
Wikipedia may not be accurate, but it suggests it was phased out in 1957, except for people who were born before 1939 and had deferred. That makes it 85/86+ men, and even if it was all of them, that's only going to be (very approximately) 10% of the over 75s.
This has only happened to me twelve or thirteen times before - overwhelming female desire for me that causes upsets, even discord. Angry husbands. Fights. Special bodyguards to get me through the crowds of excitable girls all trying to grab me
Them and you.
Seriously, though. I thought you were in your sixties? No? The Daniel Craig of PB, and even he's only in his fifties.
1) investors losing their money - foreign pension funds among them.
2) the supply chain.
For the first, any sane money manager would have written off their investment long ago.
For the second, the government could lend money to cover suppliers bills and maintain operations.
With the bond and shareholders wiped out, Thames Water becomes massively profitable. And could trivially pay back the loan from the government.
Leaving a profitable business, going forward.
The danger in public policy is when you treat England as a single homogenous mass. There are enormous disparities within and across regions and we need policy which is more "laser focused" (to use the vernacular) on areas which need help and support. It's an argument, perhaps, for moving the management of welfare (with the attendant monies and resources) to local councils to manage.
In Newham, ONS quotes the proportion of those economically inactive at 26.7% while in Norwich it's 12.2%.
Every single women is offering hard folding money to the checkin desk just to be “near” me. Absurd
Christ, very late to the party.
I think this indicates where the worries of, ahem, late middle age repose.
The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians
The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians
The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians
The Americans are on the side of the Russians and fighting against the Ukranians
Now that interest rates are at more normal rates the utilities whine and claim they need a higher return, that is larger bills for the customers, to finance the cost of the borrowing they took on when it was a no brainer and guaranteed profit. It was utterly predictable that this would happen at some point and any regulator with half a brain would have sought to restrict borrowing, even if that required additional powers. But we had OFWAT instead. And they are not alone.
https://x.com/humansnocontext/status/1901198022211752186?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
In the age of “AI” how many of those pieces are written by asking ChatGPT?
The usual issues of immigration and housing having and effect on this perhaps.
If you drove it into administration you wipe out the equity holders (pension funds) but they have mainly written off their investments anyway. And the funding then comes from tax payers.
Ultimately all funding for utilities comes from customers or taxpayers. There is no other source.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/trump-tariffs-rock-global-economy-gloomy-outlook-for-carney-s-canada-as-mexico-heads-into-recession/ar-AA1B720S?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=bcf1699f87824c3baa8f1e45cac5a230&ei=14
Trump's tariffs are enough to put Mexico into recession and cut growth pretty much everywhere, including the United States. What a genius.
Slightly weirdly, the UK is forecast to have the third highest growth of the countries listed but Reeves is on the job. FWIW I think that many of these forecasts are on the optimistic side, including ours.
It's Frank Gardner who is a 30 year BBC veteran, so should be better.
It also has things like:
Let's start with the numbers. According to the Kiel Institute, which meticulously tracks these things, Europe spends just 0.1% of its wealth on helping to defend Ukraine, while the US has been spending 0.15%.
There's the change over time not accounted for, the confusion between "wealth" and "GDP" ie stock vs flow, and no clarity on the period meant for "spends just 0.1% etc" ie is it 0.1% per annum or 0.1% of one year's GDP over 3+ years.
The latter has been used as a unit by the media, so it needs to be clarified.
Really, this is just quality journalism not being applied.
Germany is about to rearm big-time. Due to fears about Trump withdrawing the US from Europe.
The second biggest political party in Germany is now one made up of neo-Nazis. Helped along by the endorsement of Vance.
We've seen this before haven't we? (Though not with the active agency of the US).
When countries are placed under stress, there's no knowing what could happen.
The gift of Trump, the "peace-maker".
And young women, too.
Profits, they used to call them. Provided they are stopped from re-financialisation…
Conor Sen
@conorsen.bsky.social
BofA fund manager survey: biggest drop in US equity allocation on record
https://bsky.app/profile/conorsen.bsky.social/post/3lkndfh73dk2x
Macquarie is one that probably played that game.
The taxpayer can't stand behind these irresponsible companies and lenders. They all need to learn their lessons.
It's hard to see how conscription fits into a 21st century Western fighting force though. It makes a sort of sense of for SMO-style semi-mechanised trench based carnage. For high tech maneuvering/airborne warfare they could backfill a few blanket stacker jobs but that's about it.
It should be said that he is the very opposite of a conspiracy-monger. But has been led, ineluctably, to the conclusion that the USA is currently engaged in a process of destroying its own ability to secure it own interests.
The vid can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBgoNFd2LC0
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUsy9I56PY3IngCf_VGjunMQ
I'm listening to it right now.
(I imagine he would be feeling quite vindicated by his US-scepticism if he were still around.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
I suspect the reason the government aren't acting is that they don't fully grasp the issues, and outside advice they are getting is likely to be sympathetic to City rather than government interests.
More pertinently, perhaps she does believe it is impossible, or doesn't believe it and is dog whistling Reform on a slightly different frequency.
The debt comes from pension funds investors. Yes you can wipe them out (and they have already written down the loans to market)
This new debt is being used to refinance some of the loans (at an haircut) and provide working capital. It is not being paid out to equity providers.
Let’s put it like this (ignoring solvency law for simplicity).
Operating company is worth 100
Current debt is 200
Equity is -100
No new investor will buy the shares - even if they buy for zero they immediately have a loss.
So you borrow 90 to payback the debt at 45% of face value. The debt investors accept that because (a) they get some of their money back; (b) they get a higher interest rate; and (c) they get an equity participation to make back some of their losses of things go well.
The new capital structure is therefore:
Operating company: 100
Debt: 90
Equity: 10
The new investors then pay 10 for the equity, of which 5 goes to the current investors (they need some incentive to accept the deal vs bankruptcy) and 5 goes to the current debt holders who are losing money. The current debt holders piece is as equity, the current equity investors is in cash.
That’s the way it should be: equity holders largely wiped out; debt holders take a big haircut; the company recapitalised and operations continue unaffected.
- The geopolitical shift (Trump's playbook). It is, as you said, resiling from world hegemony (and dynamiting the West in the process), which results in Ukraine being handed to the Russians and Europe having to defend itself
- The dictatorial shift (Yarvin's playbook). Gut the organs of state, replace them with incompetent yes-men, ignore the courts. This causes problems which haven't been internalised: for example if NOAA is gutted, where does the armed forces get its weather reports? Starlink? Oh...
So yes you are right, but there is more going on than thatThe death of the last BoB pilot (who was Irish btw) and hourly bulletins on the Princess of Wales Guinness drinking activities pretty much a perfect news day for the BBC.
The fact is Chancellors have very little influence over short term economic conditions. Even something drastic like Brexit is difficult to isolate and quantify. The near immaterial changes that Reeves has made - even employer NICs wasn't particularly big - are very unlikely to be picked up in GDP numbers.
Better to judge them on the long term policies they have put in place. That's why the cancellation of HS2 is the one thing I'm genuinely pissed off about Sunak. The lack of reform on things like Council Tax, Stamp Duty, Fuel Duty, regional capital investment, social care, energy markets etc etc is what is starting to annoy me about this government.
I think I recall that the US Navy makes (or made in recentish historical periods) a lot of people into Small Admirals just before the out-chucking ceremony.
Another impact may be domestic violence, which flows down generations in families as each new cohort learn that it is 'normal'. According to my grandmother, that applied to my Grandfather (died in the 1960s).
When human beings are exposed to brutality, it comes out at the other end ... somehow.
My post was regraded upwards in the NHS about six months before I retired, which recovered the money I'd lost by being unable to do on-call duties any more; we'd moved out of reasonable travelling distance.
There are plenty of examples - Middlesbrough is full of them
I got promoted to Commander on my very last day of service to get rid of me because they were concerned that I was going to top myself on MoD property which would have caused a great deal of unwelcome and tiresome paperwork.
I am not anti-private enterprise. But there are two important caveats to that.
Firstly there are certain things that are just not suited to privatisation. I would suggest that our water cycle is one of them. It is not justproviding a service, many private organsiations can do that bit fine. It is also stewardship of the whole hydro cycle with all its environmental issues. Clearly the water companies have shown they are unable to do that to a reasonable standard and still make a profit.
Secondly, we need to adopt more of the French system of private involvement in public services. Very high regulation with legal backing including criminal punishment for individuals who fail to adhere to the regulations. And a strict limit on profits. Enough for the companies to be willing to invest but any excess above a set percentage goes back to the state for reinvestment.
I just don't think the current water arrangements are capable of being run in a way that suits both the customers, the environment and the shareholders. One of them has to give and to my mind it should be the shareholders.
@steverichards14
·
2h
A former member of OBR committee quoted in the Guardian sums up the government’s chosen contortion:
“We’ve got ourselves into a, frankly, pretty ridiculous position, where we’re doing fiscal fine-tuning to control the OBR forecast five years ahead.”
https://x.com/steverichards14/status/1901915865647374729
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/En5IsrX_Mk8
A role he held for all of two months under Boris.
Given the religion stats, extreme inequality, a Christendom worldview etc, it is likely to be fertile ground for such.
I know the religion stats, where in the 1970s it was 91% RC: 5% Evangelical, and is now 51% RC: 31% Evangelical. "Nominal agnostic / atheist" in the census is ~5% only. Therefore a Christendom type framing of society's view of itself is likely.
From a report in the Graun, there are attempts to "do a USA-Right" (but more so) around abortion, aiming to criminalise abortion after rape. AFAIK in the USA one way it is done is by effectively banning abortion, and not putting in a rape-exception (eg Missouri up until the recent ballot initiative).
Brazil has recorded unprecedented levels of rape and other forms of gender-based violence for the second year running, amid growing concerns over rightwing efforts to criminalize rape victims who have an abortion.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/18/violence-against-women-in-brazil-reaches-highest-levels-on-record
There is something deeply wrong when a law passed with cross-party consensus and endorsed by Britain's most trusted charities has made it impossible to run an internet forum for hamster owners.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1901948965412630655
(Not to devalue his actual service).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1VCnnCQP3E
Every site that allows users to post content is in scope of the law and is forced to carry out a risk assessment.
If the PM wants to cut the cost of regulation, here's an easy place to start.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1901946351333634314
The Israelis were quick off the mark with 'The Biggest Massacre Since the Holocaust'. The Gazans can trump that several times over. Something that will penetrate the sensibilities of the West and the Americans. It really wont be difficult. A 72 sheet poster on Broadway and another in Cambridge Circus would be a good start
Ruth Deyermond @ruthdeyermond.bsky.social
·
4m
Today's Putin-Trump conversation will be about Russia-US relations and what they each think they can extort from Kyiv, not peace in Ukraine. That can only come with an end to Russian aggression.
https://bsky.app/profile/ruthdeyermond.bsky.social/post/3lknjkpbftk2p
And the BBC is giving a lot of time to American Trump backers, , and is quite hesitant about being critical, in a way that it isn't with other similar foreign leaders (eg Orban).
The Trumpologists who seem to climb furthest up my nose are the ones from Republicans Abroad (or whatever it is called now).
Wilson: "You know sir, I can’t help feeling that you’ve got a bit of a chip on your shoulder about that."
Mainwaring: "There’s no chip on my shoulder. I’ll tell you what there is though, three pips and don’t you forget it."
I wonder how much of the debate being had today has been influenced by the fact that the giant numbers that have come from his bean counting have become common knowledge.