Yes it's bad in Scotland Wales and NI but brilliant in England .
No, its terrible but we are spending more than ever (as if that is actually an answer), apparently.
With the benefit of hindsight I suspect that Corybn wishes he had gone on the vanishing nurses this week.
I think he would have been criticized if he did.Due to Carillion going into liquidation this week.This is fundamental to Corbyn as it is change from the consensus over the past twenty years.May saying the Labour government gave Carillion contracts enhances the change from Blair.
Good points. Funny how all the press attacks on Corbyn have made it much easier for him to differentiate himself from the errors of his predecessor. It's one of those 'strange how often evil harms itself' things that Tolkien was so fond of.
I think Theresa May is missing an opportunity on Carillion. Rather than making it a Private Sector good/ Private sector bad sector spat, she should acknowledge Jeremy Corbyn has a point. Say Carillion is an example of things going wrong and her government is going to change how public projects are managed to the benefit of all the stakeholders and for value for money. The private sector has a role to play but it needs to be managed better. So embrace the criticism and own the solution.
The private sector needs to be managed better..... by the Govt?
No Tory PM would last 5 minutes after suggesting such interference.
Tory PMs don't last if the other side wins elections. Jeremy Corbyn is onto something here. She can let him run with it or she can embrace and own.
Edit. In any case Mrs May implied she would be dealing with this kind of behaviour. See her citizens of nowhere speech that I excerpted below.
Yes it's bad in Scotland Wales and NI but brilliant in England .
No, its terrible but we are spending more than ever (as if that is actually an answer), apparently.
With the benefit of hindsight I suspect that Corybn wishes he had gone on the vanishing nurses this week.
I think he would have been criticized if he did.Due to Carillion going into liquidation this week.This is fundamental to Corbyn as it is change from the consensus over the past twenty years.May saying the Labour government gave Carillion contracts enhances the change from Blair.
The contract labour (Leeds) gave was only last week
I thought Corbyn said Leeds had not signed it ? Anyways either way he is trying to break the consensus that went from John Major through to Blair and Brown and now May .
Didn't take long. Our very own Mr Independence RCS moves to California and within a few months he has persuaded most of the state to try to secede from the central government.
New California would be comfortably Republican, while Old California would be massively Democratic. It seems a neat device to bring two more Republican Senators to Washington.
(I believe Nigel Farage has been involved in the Calexit campaign.)
Edit to add: there is basically no chance this happens.
There is one scenario where this could happen.
The USA has ever since the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had roughly two centuries of ensuring that when states are added they're added without disrupting the balance of power in the Senate.
There is already a campaign to recognise Puerto Rico as an official State, it would be a Blue state. Splitting California in two while recognising Puerto Rico would maintain the red/blue balance.
That seems extremely sensible. So there is absolutely no chance.
I wonder how many cases like this there will be (rather a lot, I expect) ...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/16/carillion-casualty-landscaper-owed-1m-could-go-bust managing director, Andy Bradley, said he had to make 10 people redundant – out of 90 – on Monday after Carillion went into liquidation. He was told by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accountants handling the liquidation together with the official receiver, that Flora-tec would be paid only for work done since then.
Flora-tec is owed £1m (£800,000 plus VAT) – more than 10% of its annual turnover – by Carillion for gritting and snow-clearing work carried out at schools, hospitals, prisons and courts in the past two months. Flora-tec was due to be paid for the work next week...
Honest question: do companies take out credit default insurance for this sort of thing?
It's available, as are factoring services. I feel very sorry for Mr Bradley and his staff, but I think he's ultimately responsible for making his own business judgements.
According to the ONS, there were 328,000 business closures in 2016 (the latest figures available). Of course, large players like Carillion are reasonably rare, but I believe it's important to keep it in perspective.
I think Theresa May is missing an opportunity on Carillion. Rather than making it a Private Sector good/ Private sector bad sector spat, she should acknowledge Jeremy Corbyn has a point. Say Carillion is an example of things going wrong and her government is going to change how public projects are managed to the benefit of all the stakeholders and for value for money. The private sector has a role to play but it needs to be managed better. So embrace the criticism and own the solution.
The private sector needs to be managed better..... by the Govt?
No Tory PM would last 5 minutes after suggesting such interference.
Mrs May points out, correctly, that the government and sundry other public bodies are customers of the likes of Carillion.
Most customers take some steps to ensure that they are getting what they pay for. Why doesn't the government? Especially when what it is buying will often be going to vulnerable groups who cannot speak for themselves. Suggesting that the customer should get what it pays for is hardly Marxism.
@MrHarryCole: Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman says it is “nonsense that he had a senior moment” after he forgot to ask a question to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Questions.
Those eager young Corbynites are going to get sick of him soon, aren't they....
No, they are fanatics. Its when he loses the next election that the disillusionment sets in -or worse, if Corbyn becomes PM and then (inevitably) fails to deliver their expectations. Either way, there will come a time when Corbyn is regarded as one of the worst ever Labour leaders.
I may disagree with virtually everything he stands for but Corbyn can certainly say he has already achieved more for Labour than Gaitskill, Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Brown and Miliband managed in electoral terms whatever else happens under his leadership going forward
I wonder how many cases like this there will be (rather a lot, I expect) ...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/16/carillion-casualty-landscaper-owed-1m-could-go-bust managing director, Andy Bradley, said he had to make 10 people redundant – out of 90 – on Monday after Carillion went into liquidation. He was told by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accountants handling the liquidation together with the official receiver, that Flora-tec would be paid only for work done since then.
Flora-tec is owed £1m (£800,000 plus VAT) – more than 10% of its annual turnover – by Carillion for gritting and snow-clearing work carried out at schools, hospitals, prisons and courts in the past two months. Flora-tec was due to be paid for the work next week...
Honest question: do companies take out credit default insurance for this sort of thing?
No, I don't think so. It's not a market insurance companies would like, because customers would only insure the dodgy ones.
I wonder how many cases like this there will be (rather a lot, I expect) ...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/16/carillion-casualty-landscaper-owed-1m-could-go-bust managing director, Andy Bradley, said he had to make 10 people redundant – out of 90 – on Monday after Carillion went into liquidation. He was told by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accountants handling the liquidation together with the official receiver, that Flora-tec would be paid only for work done since then.
Flora-tec is owed £1m (£800,000 plus VAT) – more than 10% of its annual turnover – by Carillion for gritting and snow-clearing work carried out at schools, hospitals, prisons and courts in the past two months. Flora-tec was due to be paid for the work next week...
Honest question: do companies take out credit default insurance for this sort of thing?
If it's not currently available it sounds like a great business opportunity
Lloyd’s probably do it, they’ll insure almost anything. It’s a bloody good idea if your company relies on another company for a large proportion of their revenue.
I think Theresa May is missing an opportunity on Carillion. Rather than making it a Private Sector good/ Private sector bad sector spat, she should acknowledge Jeremy Corbyn has a point. Say Carillion is an example of things going wrong and her government is going to change how public projects are managed to the benefit of all the stakeholders and for value for money. The private sector has a role to play but it needs to be managed better. So embrace the criticism and own the solution.
The private sector needs to be managed better..... by the Govt?
No Tory PM would last 5 minutes after suggesting such interference.
Mrs May points out, correctly, that the government and sundry other public bodies are customers of the likes of Carillion.
Most customers take some steps to ensure that they are getting what they pay for. Why doesn't the government? Especially when what it is buying will often be going to vulnerable groups who cannot speak for themselves. Suggesting that the customer should get what it pays for is hardly Marxism.
True. Also the government is more than a customer. It sets the framework according to its policy objectives which go further than just the actual transactions.
Yes it's bad in Scotland Wales and NI but brilliant in England .
No, its terrible but we are spending more than ever (as if that is actually an answer), apparently.
With the benefit of hindsight I suspect that Corybn wishes he had gone on the vanishing nurses this week.
I think he would have been criticized if he did.Due to Carillion going into liquidation this week.This is fundamental to Corbyn as it is change from the consensus over the past twenty years.May saying the Labour government gave Carillion contracts enhances the change from Blair.
The contract labour (Leeds) gave was only last week
I thought Corbyn said Leeds had not signed it ? Anyways either way he is trying to break the consensus that went from John Major through to Blair and Brown and now May .
I accept that Corbyn is attempting to tie in new labour as part of the problem but what was frightening was his total ignorance on business matters
He would devastate business within weeks of coming to office simply through ignorance
I think Theresa May is missing an opportunity on Carillion. Rather than making it a Private Sector good/ Private sector bad sector spat, she should acknowledge Jeremy Corbyn has a point. Say Carillion is an example of things going wrong and her government is going to change how public projects are managed to the benefit of all the stakeholders and for value for money. The private sector has a role to play but it needs to be managed better. So embrace the criticism and own the solution.
The private sector needs to be managed better..... by the Govt?
No Tory PM would last 5 minutes after suggesting such interference.
Mrs May points out, correctly, that the government and sundry other public bodies are customers of the likes of Carillion.
Most customers take some steps to ensure that they are getting what they pay for. Why doesn't the government? Especially when what it is buying will often be going to vulnerable groups who cannot speak for themselves. Suggesting that the customer should get what it pays for is hardly Marxism.
True. Also the government is more than a customer. It sets the framework according to its policy objectives which go further than just the actual transactions.
And they usually have statutory duties to provide the services contracted for. How they deliver them is a matter for the government but the duty is on them. Same with local authorities and care packages where far too many corners are being cut.
I wonder how many cases like this there will be (rather a lot, I expect) ...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/16/carillion-casualty-landscaper-owed-1m-could-go-bust managing director, Andy Bradley, said he had to make 10 people redundant – out of 90 – on Monday after Carillion went into liquidation. He was told by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accountants handling the liquidation together with the official receiver, that Flora-tec would be paid only for work done since then.
Flora-tec is owed £1m (£800,000 plus VAT) – more than 10% of its annual turnover – by Carillion for gritting and snow-clearing work carried out at schools, hospitals, prisons and courts in the past two months. Flora-tec was due to be paid for the work next week...
I think Theresa May is missing an opportunity on Carillion. Rather than making it a Private Sector good/ Private sector bad sector spat, she should acknowledge Jeremy Corbyn has a point. Say Carillion is an example of things going wrong and her government is going to change how public projects are managed to the benefit of all the stakeholders and for value for money. The private sector has a role to play but it needs to be managed better. So embrace the criticism and own the solution.
The private sector needs to be managed better..... by the Govt?
No Tory PM would last 5 minutes after suggesting such interference.
Mrs May points out, correctly, that the government and sundry other public bodies are customers of the likes of Carillion.
Most customers take some steps to ensure that they are getting what they pay for. Why doesn't the government? Especially when what it is buying will often be going to vulnerable groups who cannot speak for themselves. Suggesting that the customer should get what it pays for is hardly Marxism.
Agreed , I did not like previously paying 2% to use a credit card to pay for some deposits on contracted work on my house.However I used it as insurance incase the company went bust.Then I could get my money back if required.
I wonder how many cases like this there will be (rather a lot, I expect) ...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/16/carillion-casualty-landscaper-owed-1m-could-go-bust managing director, Andy Bradley, said he had to make 10 people redundant – out of 90 – on Monday after Carillion went into liquidation. He was told by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accountants handling the liquidation together with the official receiver, that Flora-tec would be paid only for work done since then.
Flora-tec is owed £1m (£800,000 plus VAT) – more than 10% of its annual turnover – by Carillion for gritting and snow-clearing work carried out at schools, hospitals, prisons and courts in the past two months. Flora-tec was due to be paid for the work next week...
Honest question: do companies take out credit default insurance for this sort of thing?
No, I don't think so. It's not a market insurance companies would like, because customers would only insure the dodgy ones.
Some of my clients have had it in the past. But they generally have to take it out on an insure all basis rather than being selective for the reasons you point out.
One in the eye for Jeremy if the Bayeux Tapestry is put on display in Hastings and Amber Rudd benefits. Of course if Corbyn had been King Harold in 1066 he would have claimed that he had won the Battle of Hastings and the fact that William the Conqueror was crowned king was fake news.
I think Theresa May is missing an opportunity on Carillion. Rather than making it a Private Sector good/ Private sector bad sector spat, she should acknowledge Jeremy Corbyn has a point. Say Carillion is an example of things going wrong and her government is going to change how public projects are managed to the benefit of all the stakeholders and for value for money. The private sector has a role to play but it needs to be managed better. So embrace the criticism and own the solution.
The private sector needs to be managed better..... by the Govt?
No Tory PM would last 5 minutes after suggesting such interference.
Mrs May points out, correctly, that the government and sundry other public bodies are customers of the likes of Carillion.
Most customers take some steps to ensure that they are getting what they pay for. Why doesn't the government? Especially when what it is buying will often be going to vulnerable groups who cannot speak for themselves. Suggesting that the customer should get what it pays for is hardly Marxism.
Agreed , I did not like previously paying 2% to use a credit card to pay for some deposits on contracted work on my house.However I used it as insurance incase the company went bust.Then I could get my money back if required.
Credit cards are often a very cost effective mode of insurance.
One in the eye for Jeremy if the Bayeux Tapestry is put on display in Hastings and Amber Rudd benefits. Of course if Corbyn had been King Harold in 1066 he would have claimed that he had won the Battle of Hastings and the fact that William the Conqueror was crowned king was fake news.
One in the eye for Jeremy if the Bayeux Tapestry is put on display in Hastings and Amber Rudd benefits. Of course if Corbyn had been King Harold in 1066 he would have claimed that he had won the Battle of Hastings and the fact that William the Conqueror was crowned king was fake news.
Battle Abbey is in Bexhill and Battle constituency not Hastings and Rye
The Official Receiver is very pleased with the level of support shown by Carillion’s private sector service customers. Over the past 48 hours all of the company’s private sector service customers have been contacted to determine their ongoing needs.
Over 90% of these customers have indicated that they want Carillion to continue providing services in the interim until new suppliers can be found and will provide funding which enables the Official Receiver to retain the employees working on those contracts.
I am curious as to the legal structure for doing this. Is it simply that the Official Receiver agrees to keep employing the workers and providing the service in exchange for the customer agreeing to keep paying future Carillion invoices as normal? If so, how does that square with the fact that he's supposed to be liquidating the group, rather than acting as an administrator?
One in the eye for Jeremy if the Bayeux Tapestry is put on display in Hastings and Amber Rudd benefits. Of course if Corbyn had been King Harold in 1066 he would have claimed that he had won the Battle of Hastings and the fact that William the Conqueror was crowned king was fake news.
Err, how would Harold done that? He was dead.
You think a mere arrow in the eye could stop the mighty Corbyn? Oh yea of so little faith!
One in the eye for Jeremy if the Bayeux Tapestry is put on display in Hastings and Amber Rudd benefits. Of course if Corbyn had been King Harold in 1066 he would have claimed that he had won the Battle of Hastings and the fact that William the Conqueror was crowned king was fake news.
Battle Abbey is in Bexhill and Battle constituency not Hastings and Rye
Oh thats irrelevant. Perception is everything in politics, and politics pays no heed to such facts. Hastings would inevitably profit economically from the Bayeux Tapestry being put on display in the region simply because it commemorates the Battle of Hastings.
One in the eye for Jeremy if the Bayeux Tapestry is put on display in Hastings and Amber Rudd benefits. Of course if Corbyn had been King Harold in 1066 he would have claimed that he had won the Battle of Hastings and the fact that William the Conqueror was crowned king was fake news.
Battle Abbey is in Bexhill and Battle constituency not Hastings and Rye
Oh thats irrelevant. Perception is everything in politics, and politics pays no heed to such facts. Hastings would inevitably profit economically from the Bayeux Tapestry being put on display in the region simply because it commemorates the Battle of Hastings.
In the East Sussex area maybe but Battle Abbey, the main battle exhibition and the battlefield itself are in Battle
The Official Receiver is very pleased with the level of support shown by Carillion’s private sector service customers. Over the past 48 hours all of the company’s private sector service customers have been contacted to determine their ongoing needs.
Over 90% of these customers have indicated that they want Carillion to continue providing services in the interim until new suppliers can be found and will provide funding which enables the Official Receiver to retain the employees working on those contracts.
I am curious as to the legal structure for doing this. Is it simply that the Official Receiver agrees to keep employing the workers and providing the service in exchange for the customer agreeing to keep paying future Carillion invoices as normal? If so, how does that square with the fact that he's supposed to be liquidating the group, rather than acting as an administrator?
The liquidator has the power to wind up the affairs of the company. If he chooses to do so this can include winding down or concluding contracts in a way that prevents claims arising against the company to the detriment of other creditors. Most liquidators are pretty cautious about doing this as they are personally liable for any contractual obligations incurred after their appointment but the Official Receiver has a pretty good backer who is very keen to ensure that the contracts are indeed wound down in an orderly way.
I wonder how many cases like this there will be (rather a lot, I expect) ...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/16/carillion-casualty-landscaper-owed-1m-could-go-bust managing director, Andy Bradley, said he had to make 10 people redundant – out of 90 – on Monday after Carillion went into liquidation. He was told by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accountants handling the liquidation together with the official receiver, that Flora-tec would be paid only for work done since then.
Flora-tec is owed £1m (£800,000 plus VAT) – more than 10% of its annual turnover – by Carillion for gritting and snow-clearing work carried out at schools, hospitals, prisons and courts in the past two months. Flora-tec was due to be paid for the work next week...
Honest question: do companies take out credit default insurance for this sort of thing?
If it's not currently available it sounds like a great business opportunity
Lloyd’s probably do it, they’ll insure almost anything. It’s a bloody good idea if your company relies on another company for a large proportion of their revenue.
Anything except financial guarantee, and land based war risks. Insolvency cover might well be financial guarantee
One in the eye for Jeremy if the Bayeux Tapestry is put on display in Hastings and Amber Rudd benefits. Of course if Corbyn had been King Harold in 1066 he would have claimed that he had won the Battle of Hastings and the fact that William the Conqueror was crowned king was fake news.
Err, how would Harold done that? He was dead.
You think a mere arrow in the eye could stop the mighty Corbyn? Oh yea of so little faith!
Corbynistas would have claimed that Corbyn's death was fake news or that he had risen on the Third Day. Corbyn would have ended up with arrows in both eyes for "there is none so blind as those who will not see".
For those on various Trump impeachment bets, a reassuring 538 chat:
harry: I’ll just say what I’ve always said: The chance of impeachment is underrated and the chance of conviction is probably overrated.
natesilver: I mean … it’s more likely than not that Trump gets impeached, right?
micah: I’m not sure of that.
harry: There’s a pretty good shot, but that’s a rather bold statement.
clare.malone: Well, it’s basically like answering the question of whether or not you’re confident in a Democratic House wave in 2018.
perry: So Democrats are likely to win House. Correct. There will be a huge push from liberal activists for impeachment.
Is that 50 percent? Let me think about that.
natesilver: Let’s say a 65 percent chance of Democrats winning the House, which is about where betting markets have it. Conditional upon their winning the House, what’s the chance Trump gets impeached? Maybe 75 percent? Plus a small chance that he does something so egregious that even if Republicans hold the House, they impeach him. I think you come out at about 50 percent or a bit higher.
The liquidator has the power to wind up the affairs of the company. If he chooses to do so this can include winding down or concluding contracts in a way that prevents claims arising against the company to the detriment of other creditors. Most liquidators are pretty cautious about doing this as they are personally liable for any contractual obligations incurred after their appointment but the Official Receiver has a pretty good backer who is very keen to ensure that the contracts are indeed wound down in an orderly way.
Right, thanks. (Also, I believe the Official Receiver isn't personally liable, it's a special case).
One in the eye for Jeremy if the Bayeux Tapestry is put on display in Hastings and Amber Rudd benefits. Of course if Corbyn had been King Harold in 1066 he would have claimed that he had won the Battle of Hastings and the fact that William the Conqueror was crowned king was fake news.
Err, how would Harold done that? He was dead.
You think a mere arrow in the eye could stop the mighty Corbyn? Oh yea of so little faith!
Corbynistas would have claimed that Corbyn's death was fake news or that he had risen on the Third Day. Corbyn would have ended up with arrows in both eyes for "there is none so blind as those who will not see".
The liquidator has the power to wind up the affairs of the company. If he chooses to do so this can include winding down or concluding contracts in a way that prevents claims arising against the company to the detriment of other creditors. Most liquidators are pretty cautious about doing this as they are personally liable for any contractual obligations incurred after their appointment but the Official Receiver has a pretty good backer who is very keen to ensure that the contracts are indeed wound down in an orderly way.
Right, thanks. (Also, I believe the Official Receiver isn't personally liable, it's a special case).
For those on various Trump impeachment bets, a reassuring 538 chat:
harry: I’ll just say what I’ve always said: The chance of impeachment is underrated and the chance of conviction is probably overrated.
natesilver: I mean … it’s more likely than not that Trump gets impeached, right?
micah: I’m not sure of that.
harry: There’s a pretty good shot, but that’s a rather bold statement.
clare.malone: Well, it’s basically like answering the question of whether or not you’re confident in a Democratic House wave in 2018.
perry: So Democrats are likely to win House. Correct. There will be a huge push from liberal activists for impeachment.
Is that 50 percent? Let me think about that.
natesilver: Let’s say a 65 percent chance of Democrats winning the House, which is about where betting markets have it. Conditional upon their winning the House, what’s the chance Trump gets impeached? Maybe 75 percent? Plus a small chance that he does something so egregious that even if Republicans hold the House, they impeach him. I think you come out at about 50 percent or a bit higher.
The interesting thing about the Dems controlling the House is that they can totally seize up Trump's Presidency by holding hearings, requesting documents etc.
Trump won't be able to use executive privilege either when it comes to investigations into his campaign.
One in the eye for Jeremy if the Bayeux Tapestry is put on display in Hastings and Amber Rudd benefits. Of course if Corbyn had been King Harold in 1066 he would have claimed that he had won the Battle of Hastings and the fact that William the Conqueror was crowned king was fake news.
Err, how would Harold done that? He was dead.
You think a mere arrow in the eye could stop the mighty Corbyn? Oh yea of so little faith!
Corbynistas would have claimed that Corbyn's death was fake news or that he had risen on the Third Day. Corbyn would have ended up with arrows in both eyes for "there is none so blind as those who will not see".
You sure you're a Labour supporter?
Oh yes I am a Labour supporter. But I loathe the hard left with a passion. What an insult to Attlee and Wilson by Corbynista supporter Paul Mason yesterday to suggest that a future Corbyn government would be the first government in our history to represent the working class. Corbyn and his cronies arent really Labour supporters. They really belong in the communist or SWP. For decades they have been discrediting Labour and ensuring Labour's defeat. They give Labour a bad name. The hard left is vicious, intolerant, incompetent, blinkered and bad.
Anyone who loves Labour truly will loathe Jeremy Corbyn.
The liquidator has the power to wind up the affairs of the company. If he chooses to do so this can include winding down or concluding contracts in a way that prevents claims arising against the company to the detriment of other creditors. Most liquidators are pretty cautious about doing this as they are personally liable for any contractual obligations incurred after their appointment but the Official Receiver has a pretty good backer who is very keen to ensure that the contracts are indeed wound down in an orderly way.
Right, thanks. (Also, I believe the Official Receiver isn't personally liable, it's a special case).
Ah, we don't have Official Receivers in Scotland.
I could do with a bit of Scottish law in my life right now ^^;
Yes it's bad in Scotland Wales and NI but brilliant in England .
No, its terrible but we are spending more than ever (as if that is actually an answer), apparently.
With the benefit of hindsight I suspect that Corybn wishes he had gone on the vanishing nurses this week.
I think he would have been criticized if he did.Due to Carillion going into liquidation this week.This is fundamental to Corbyn as it is change from the consensus over the past twenty years.May saying the Labour government gave Carillion contracts enhances the change from Blair.
The contract labour (Leeds) gave was only last week
I thought Corbyn said Leeds had not signed it ? Anyways either way he is trying to break the consensus that went from John Major through to Blair and Brown and now May .
I accept that Corbyn is attempting to tie in new labour as part of the problem but what was frightening was his total ignorance on business matters
He would devastate business within weeks of coming to office simply through ignorance
You could be correct.Been a centrist dad , with Corbyn supporting daughters and a Thatcherite father , the referendum certainly brought home the differences.However many more people are prepared to throw the dice, than I ever thought possible.
For those on various Trump impeachment bets, a reassuring 538 chat:
harry: I’ll just say what I’ve always said: The chance of impeachment is underrated and the chance of conviction is probably overrated.
natesilver: I mean … it’s more likely than not that Trump gets impeached, right?
micah: I’m not sure of that.
harry: There’s a pretty good shot, but that’s a rather bold statement.
clare.malone: Well, it’s basically like answering the question of whether or not you’re confident in a Democratic House wave in 2018.
perry: So Democrats are likely to win House. Correct. There will be a huge push from liberal activists for impeachment.
Is that 50 percent? Let me think about that.
natesilver: Let’s say a 65 percent chance of Democrats winning the House, which is about where betting markets have it. Conditional upon their winning the House, what’s the chance Trump gets impeached? Maybe 75 percent? Plus a small chance that he does something so egregious that even if Republicans hold the House, they impeach him. I think you come out at about 50 percent or a bit higher.
The interesting thing about the Dems controlling the House is that they can totally seize up Trump's Presidency by holding hearings, requesting documents etc.
Trump won't be able to use executive privilege either when it comes to investigations into his campaign.
I don't think impeachment is a good strategy for the Democrats, as it happens. But as perry says, there will be a huge push for it, and that will tie into the Democratic primary as well (though I don't think there are any House Democrats that likely to contend).
Ms Greening’s constituency is full of well-paid young people who, thanks to higher competition for housing largely driven by immigration, are stuck in house shares with no prospect of home ownership. Freedom of movement is not working for them.
Ms Greening’s constituency is full of well-paid young people who, thanks to higher competition for housing largely driven by immigration, are stuck in house shares with no prospect of home ownership. Freedom of movement is not working for them.
But it needs to be given a chance to work first. There is a huge difference between seeking to ignore a democratic referendum to leave -which the likes of Blair and Clegg are trying to do -and campaigning to rejoin after we have left. If we do rejoin however, we will have to accept the Euro.
One in the eye for Jeremy if the Bayeux Tapestry is put on display in Hastings and Amber Rudd benefits. Of course if Corbyn had been King Harold in 1066 he would have claimed that he had won the Battle of Hastings and the fact that William the Conqueror was crowned king was fake news.
Err, how would Harold done that? He was dead.
You think a mere arrow in the eye could stop the mighty Corbyn? Oh yea of so little faith!
Corbynistas would have claimed that Corbyn's death was fake news or that he had risen on the Third Day. Corbyn would have ended up with arrows in both eyes for "there is none so blind as those who will not see".
You sure you're a Labour supporter?
Oh yes I am a Labour supporter. But I loathe the hard left with a passion. What an insult to Attlee and Wilson by Corbynista supporter Paul Mason yesterday to suggest that a future Corbyn government would be the first government in our history to represent the working class. Corbyn and his cronies arent really Labour supporters. They really belong in the communist or SWP. For decades they have been discrediting Labour and ensuring Labour's defeat. They give Labour a bad name. The hard left is vicious, intolerant, incompetent, blinkered and bad.
Anyone who loves Labour truly will loathe Jeremy Corbyn.
And you reconcile the fact that there are 30 more Labour MPs in this Parliament than the last because of Corbyn how, exactly?
Ms Greening’s constituency is full of well-paid young people who, thanks to higher competition for housing largely driven by immigration, are stuck in house shares with no prospect of home ownership. Freedom of movement is not working for them.
A more disingenuous argument it would be hard to find. Do you think people in Putney are crying out to depopulate London?
Yes it's bad in Scotland Wales and NI but brilliant in England .
No, its terrible but we are spending more than ever (as if that is actually an answer), apparently.
With the benefit of hindsight I suspect that Corybn wishes he had gone on the vanishing nurses this week.
I think he would have been criticized if he did.Due to Carillion going into liquidation this week.This is fundamental to Corbyn as it is change from the consensus over the past twenty years.May saying the Labour government gave Carillion contracts enhances the change from Blair.
The contract labour (Leeds) gave was only last week
I thought Corbyn said Leeds had not signed it ? Anyways either way he is trying to break the consensus that went from John Major through to Blair and Brown and now May .
I accept that Corbyn is attempting to tie in new labour as part of the problem but what was frightening was his total ignorance on business matters
He would devastate business within weeks of coming to office simply through ignorance
You could be correct.Been a centrist dad , with Corbyn supporting daughters and a Thatcherite father , the referendum certainly brought home the differences.However many more people are prepared to throw the dice, than I ever thought possible.
The difficulty attacking Corbyn as a nailed on calamity is he may not be.....if Corbynomics impacts on UK industry, like Brexit it will be attritional and over time. But I am inclined to agree with Hezza.. the country has much more to fear from Brexit than Corbyn
Anyone who loves Labour truly will loathe Jeremy Corbyn.
Look, I've been a party member for 47 years and avoided all the sectarian backbiting that periodically pops up from either wing of the party, and I'm going to avoid yours too. But, however strongly you feel, you're really not entitled to dictate that only your view is the correct one, any more than the most fanatical lefty insisting that there is only one True Belief.
I've yet to see you say anything positive about Labour or critical about the Conservatives: every post is about how you feel about Corbyn. The message would be more convincing if you varied it a bit.
F1: ha, got excited when I saw the first part of a new F1 market on Ladbrokes. 6 for Hamilton to get 8 or more (thought it might be wins) championships.
I'd avoid that. He's on four right now. It's certainly credible, but the best case scenario is you collect at ok odds in December 2021. Not a fan of tying up money for that long, at those odds.
Ms Greening’s constituency is full of well-paid young people who, thanks to higher competition for housing largely driven by immigration, are stuck in house shares with no prospect of home ownership. Freedom of movement is not working for them.
They choose to live in the most successful city in Europe, successful because of their open-minded attitudes and that of those that come here. Your deranged project seeks to undo that, closing off London as a world capital, rendering it less economically successful. Yet you dare to preach to young Londoners, who you clearly see as suffering from false consciousness.
Ms Greening’s constituency is full of well-paid young people who, thanks to higher competition for housing largely driven by immigration, are stuck in house shares with no prospect of home ownership. Freedom of movement is not working for them.
But it needs to be given a chance to work first. There is a huge difference between seeking to ignore a democratic referendum to leave -which the likes of Blair and Clegg are trying to do -and campaigning to rejoin after we have left. If we do rejoin however, we will have to accept the Euro.
This is an odd argument, because the crux of it is that the only non-negotiable result you see from the 2016 referendum will be to remove our opt-out from the Euro.
Ms Greening’s constituency is full of well-paid young people who, thanks to higher competition for housing largely driven by immigration, are stuck in house shares with no prospect of home ownership. Freedom of movement is not working for them.
They choose to live in the most successful city in Europe, successful because of their open-minded attitudes and that of those that come here. Your deranged project seeks to undo that, closing off London as a world capital, rendering it less economically successful. Yet you dare to preach to young Londoners, who you clearly see as suffering from false consciousness.
To blame immigration for our housing problems is just racist and nonsense...a bit like blaming immigration for NHS shortages as I got from bloke in the pub yesterday....
And you reconcile the fact that there are 30 more Labour MPs in this Parliament than the last because of Corbyn how, exactly?
Because of the so-called Progressive Alliance, of course. The Green Party started the rot, followed by parts of the media and one or two retired politicians in the Liberal Democrats. Effectively, the message was that it was OK to vote Labour in order to stop the Tory landslide that everybody was expecting.
Mr Corbyn himself had nothing to do with it, except to be all things to all men. But somebody somewhere in the higher echelons of the Labour Party recognised that this was a good opportunity to take everything and give nothing.
The Green Party, at least, has seen the error of its ways. The idea of a progressive alliance has been killed off by Labour. This situation will not be repeated.
Yes it's bad in Scotland Wales and NI but brilliant in England .
No, its terrible but we are spending more than ever (as if that is actually an answer), apparently.
With the benefit of hindsight I suspect that Corybn wishes he had gone on the vanishing nurses this week.
I think he would have been criticized if he did.Due to Carillion going into liquidation this week.This is fundamental to Corbyn as it is change from the consensus over the past twenty years.May saying the Labour government gave Carillion contracts enhances the change from Blair.
The contract labour (Leeds) gave was only last week
I thought Corbyn said Leeds had not signed it ? Anyways either way he is trying to break the consensus that went from John Major through to Blair and Brown and now May .
I accept that Corbyn is attempting to tie in new labour as part of the problem but what was frightening was his total ignorance on business matters
He would devastate business within weeks of coming to office simply through ignorance
You could be correct.Been a centrist dad , with Corbyn supporting daughters and a Thatcherite father , the referendum certainly brought home the differences.However many more people are prepared to throw the dice, than I ever thought possible.
The difficulty attacking Corbyn as a nailed on calamity is he may not be.....if Corbynomics impacts on UK industry, like Brexit it will be attritional and over time. But I am inclined to agree with Hezza.. the country has much more to fear from Brexit than Corbyn
It's the possible combination of the two that dismays me.
Yes it's bad in Scotland Wales and NI but brilliant in England .
No, its terrible but we are spending more than ever (as if that is actually an answer), apparently.
With the benefit of hindsight I suspect that Corybn wishes he had gone on the vanishing nurses this week.
I think he would have been criticized if he did.Due to Carillion going into liquidation this week.This is fundamental to Corbyn as it is change from the consensus over the past twenty years.May saying the Labour government gave Carillion contracts enhances the change from Blair.
The contract labour (Leeds) gave was only last week
I thought Corbyn said Leeds had not signed it ? Anyways either way he is trying to break the consensus that went from John Major through to Blair and Brown and now May .
I accept that Corbyn is attempting to tie in new labour as part of the problem but what was frightening was his total ignorance on business matters
He would devastate business within weeks of coming to office simply through ignorance
You could be correct.Been a centrist dad , with Corbyn supporting daughters and a Thatcherite father , the referendum certainly brought home the differences.However many more people are prepared to throw the dice, than I ever thought possible.
The difficulty attacking Corbyn as a nailed on calamity is he may not be.....if Corbynomics impacts on UK industry, like Brexit it will be attritional and over time. But I am inclined to agree with Hezza.. the country has much more to fear from Brexit than Corbyn
It's the possible combination of the two that dismays me.
Ms Greening’s constituency is full of well-paid young people who, thanks to higher competition for housing largely driven by immigration, are stuck in house shares with no prospect of home ownership. Freedom of movement is not working for them.
They choose to live in the most successful city in Europe, successful because of their open-minded attitudes and that of those that come here. Your deranged project seeks to undo that, closing off London as a world capital, rendering it less economically successful. Yet you dare to preach to young Londoners, who you clearly see as suffering from false consciousness.
To blame immigration for our housing problems is just racist and nonsense...a bit like blaming immigration for NHS shortages as I got from bloke in the pub yesterday....
Sadly it is all too easy to find people who blame all society's ills on their obsession –immigration.
Very good reply. I do not think the answers to our country future somehow are rooted in the past, either from those ideological reactionaries who hark back to the empire or from the ideological left who see solutions in the state leftism of the 1970's. The fact that both sets are likely to get a go at driving the bus over the next decade or so dismays me too.
Every cloud though....at least completing my tax returns will be quicker with much less to show in ten years time
The Official Receiver is very pleased with the level of support shown by Carillion’s private sector service customers. Over the past 48 hours all of the company’s private sector service customers have been contacted to determine their ongoing needs.
Over 90% of these customers have indicated that they want Carillion to continue providing services in the interim until new suppliers can be found and will provide funding which enables the Official Receiver to retain the employees working on those contracts.
I am curious as to the legal structure for doing this. Is it simply that the Official Receiver agrees to keep employing the workers and providing the service in exchange for the customer agreeing to keep paying future Carillion invoices as normal? If so, how does that square with the fact that he's supposed to be liquidating the group, rather than acting as an administrator?
Carillion Group PLC will be liquaditated, but subsidiaries that are separate legal entities will likely end up in administration.
And you reconcile the fact that there are 30 more Labour MPs in this Parliament than the last because of Corbyn how, exactly?
Because of the so-called Progressive Alliance, of course. The Green Party started the rot, followed by parts of the media and one or two retired politicians in the Liberal Democrats. Effectively, the message was that it was OK to vote Labour in order to stop the Tory landslide that everybody was expecting.
Mr Corbyn himself had nothing to do with it, except to be all things to all men. But somebody somewhere in the higher echelons of the Labour Party recognised that this was a good opportunity to take everything and give nothing.
The Green Party, at least, has seen the error of its ways. The idea of a progressive alliance has been killed off by Labour. This situation will not be repeated.
I am as about as far as being a fan of Corbyn as it is possible to get (or at least I thought so until I read some comments by some Labour supporters) but this seems a highly distorted and fanciful rewriting of history.
Corbyn had an excellent campaign. He spoke well, he enthused younger voters and others often not inclined to vote and his campaign seemed relatively organised (unlike May's). It is absurd to pretend that this did not affect the result just because he is of a different sect. Absurd.
The difficulty attacking Corbyn as a nailed on calamity is he may not be.....if Corbynomics impacts on UK industry, like Brexit it will be attritional and over time. But I am inclined to agree with Hezza.. the country has much more to fear from Brexit than Corbyn
It's the possible combination of the two that dismays me.
Testify.
If people want Corbynism and vote for it, shouldn't they get it? I speak as someone who will obviously be doing my utmost to persuade them otherwise. Having the EU as an anti-democratic backstop isn't very satisfactory, is it?
The difficulty attacking Corbyn as a nailed on calamity is he may not be.....if Corbynomics impacts on UK industry, like Brexit it will be attritional and over time. But I am inclined to agree with Hezza.. the country has much more to fear from Brexit than Corbyn
It's the possible combination of the two that dismays me.
Testify.
If people want Corbynism and vote for it, shouldn't they get it? I speak as someone who will obviously be doing my utmost to persuade them otherwise. Having the EU as an anti-democratic backstop isn't very satisfactory, is it?
That’s democracy. I’m not a fan of either Brexit or Corbyn, I respect the will of the people but it also makes me mournful at the stupidity of voters.
The difficulty attacking Corbyn as a nailed on calamity is he may not be.....if Corbynomics impacts on UK industry, like Brexit it will be attritional and over time. But I am inclined to agree with Hezza.. the country has much more to fear from Brexit than Corbyn
It's the possible combination of the two that dismays me.
Testify.
If people want Corbynism and vote for it, shouldn't they get it? I speak as someone who will obviously be doing my utmost to persuade them otherwise. Having the EU as an anti-democratic backstop isn't very satisfactory, is it?
Quite. If the electorate vote for PM Corbyn, that's democracy. I'm a democrat before I'm a Tory or such.
The difficulty attacking Corbyn as a nailed on calamity is he may not be.....if Corbynomics impacts on UK industry, like Brexit it will be attritional and over time. But I am inclined to agree with Hezza.. the country has much more to fear from Brexit than Corbyn
It's the possible combination of the two that dismays me.
Testify.
If people want Corbynism and vote for it, shouldn't they get it? I speak as someone who will obviously be doing my utmost to persuade them otherwise. Having the EU as an anti-democratic backstop isn't very satisfactory, is it?
Yes, but it does no harm pointing out, to those (well represented on this site) who think that maybe he won't be as bad as he says he will be, that that the risk is even greater without the backstop.
Or, to put it another way, if you take back control, you need to be extra careful to exercise it responsibly.
Ms Greening’s constituency is full of well-paid young people who, thanks to higher competition for housing largely driven by immigration, are stuck in house shares with no prospect of home ownership. Freedom of movement is not working for them.
They choose to live in the most successful city in Europe, successful because of their open-minded attitudes and that of those that come here. Your deranged project seeks to undo that, closing off London as a world capital, rendering it less economically successful. Yet you dare to preach to young Londoners, who you clearly see as suffering from false consciousness.
To blame immigration for our housing problems is just racist and nonsense...a bit like blaming immigration for NHS shortages as I got from bloke in the pub yesterday....
To say the size of the population has no impact on housing shortages is of course rather naive. If London only had 7 million people as in 2001 rather than nearly 9 million as now - and that's after 700,000 locals have apparently left according to the census - perhaps the housing crisis wouldn't be as large. Over a third of its residents were born abroad - and immigration has clearly driven most of that rise.
The government has presided over a very large scale rise in immigration over the last 20 years - while totally failing to invest in the housing and infrastructure needed as a result.
It's not the fault of immigrants - but immigration has surely contributed towards the increased housing demand and shortage or social housing. Cos rising housing demand is in part linked to population growth isn't it?
The Official Receiver is very pleased with the level of support shown by Carillion’s private sector service customers. Over the past 48 hours all of the company’s private sector service customers have been contacted to determine their ongoing needs.
Over 90% of these customers have indicated that they want Carillion to continue providing services in the interim until new suppliers can be found and will provide funding which enables the Official Receiver to retain the employees working on those contracts.
I am curious as to the legal structure for doing this. Is it simply that the Official Receiver agrees to keep employing the workers and providing the service in exchange for the customer agreeing to keep paying future Carillion invoices as normal? If so, how does that square with the fact that he's supposed to be liquidating the group, rather than acting as an administrator?
Carillion Group PLC will be liquaditated, but subsidiaries that are separate legal entities will likely end up in administration.
Interesting. Surely Group PLC's shares in profitable subsidiaries are its assets, i.e. the PLC's receivers will flog them?
You guys are not too good at sticking to the topic, are you? The topic is the SNP losing 4% support to the LD's, Greens, UKIP and to some extent the Conservatives, plus 1% down on Independence. The Bayeux Tapestry is obviously more interesting. As a Green Independence supporter I can live with such a poll, and I think when the terms of Brexit become more obvious people in Scotland will be looking for the lifeboat.
Comments
Edit. In any case Mrs May implied she would be dealing with this kind of behaviour. See her citizens of nowhere speech that I excerpted below.
According to the ONS, there were 328,000 business closures in 2016 (the latest figures available). Of course, large players like Carillion are reasonably rare, but I believe it's important to keep it in perspective.
Most customers take some steps to ensure that they are getting what they pay for. Why doesn't the government? Especially when what it is buying will often be going to vulnerable groups who cannot speak for themselves. Suggesting that the customer should get what it pays for is hardly Marxism.
He would devastate business within weeks of coming to office simply through ignorance
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-70018-relief-from-vat-on-bad-debts/vat-notice-70018-relief-from-vat-on-bad-debts
The Official Receiver is very pleased with the level of support shown by Carillion’s private sector service customers. Over the past 48 hours all of the company’s private sector service customers have been contacted to determine their ongoing needs.
Over 90% of these customers have indicated that they want Carillion to continue providing services in the interim until new suppliers can be found and will provide funding which enables the Official Receiver to retain the employees working on those contracts.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/jan/17/carillion-crisis-suppliers-job-losses-distress-global-risks-business-live
13:07
I am curious as to the legal structure for doing this. Is it simply that the Official Receiver agrees to keep employing the workers and providing the service in exchange for the customer agreeing to keep paying future Carillion invoices as normal? If so, how does that square with the fact that he's supposed to be liquidating the group, rather than acting as an administrator?
Why should London get all the goods?
If May is serious about spreading the love to the provinces she'll send it to Battle, which has a far more interesting museum.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/1066-battle-of-hastings-abbey-and-battlefield/
harry: I’ll just say what I’ve always said: The chance of impeachment is underrated and the chance of conviction is probably overrated.
natesilver: I mean … it’s more likely than not that Trump gets impeached, right?
micah: I’m not sure of that.
harry: There’s a pretty good shot, but that’s a rather bold statement.
clare.malone: Well, it’s basically like answering the question of whether or not you’re confident in a Democratic House wave in 2018.
perry: So Democrats are likely to win House. Correct. There will be a huge push from liberal activists for impeachment.
Is that 50 percent? Let me think about that.
natesilver: Let’s say a 65 percent chance of Democrats winning the House, which is about where betting markets have it. Conditional upon their winning the House, what’s the chance Trump gets impeached? Maybe 75 percent? Plus a small chance that he does something so egregious that even if Republicans hold the House, they impeach him. I think you come out at about 50 percent or a bit higher.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-was-most-surprising-about-trumps-first-year/
There's also Battlefield, where Henry IV decisively moved to crush Henry Hotspur, seeing off the dangerous Percy rebellion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Mary_Magdalene's_Church,_Battlefield
Edited extra bit: Martin Whitmarsh, former McLaren boss and decent fellow, is returning as a consultant: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/42719672
The interesting thing about the Dems controlling the House is that they can totally seize up Trump's Presidency by holding hearings, requesting documents etc.
Trump won't be able to use executive privilege either when it comes to investigations into his campaign.
Corbyn and his cronies arent really Labour supporters. They really belong in the communist or SWP. For decades they have been discrediting Labour and ensuring Labour's defeat. They give Labour a bad name. The hard left is vicious, intolerant, incompetent, blinkered and bad.
Anyone who loves Labour truly will loathe Jeremy Corbyn.
http://dementia.ie/images/uploads/site-images/MoCA-Test-English_7_1.pdf
.... not exactly a high bar.
The difficulty attacking Corbyn as a nailed on calamity is he may not be.....if Corbynomics impacts on UK industry, like Brexit it will be attritional and over time. But I am inclined to agree with Hezza.. the country has much more to fear from Brexit than Corbyn
I've yet to see you say anything positive about Labour or critical about the Conservatives: every post is about how you feel about Corbyn. The message would be more convincing if you varied it a bit.
I'd avoid that. He's on four right now. It's certainly credible, but the best case scenario is you collect at ok odds in December 2021. Not a fan of tying up money for that long, at those odds.
Even a thread on Scottish politics which I have as much interest in as watching "Bake Off" becomes eminently more appealing during this period....
Mr Corbyn himself had nothing to do with it, except to be all things to all men. But somebody somewhere in the higher echelons of the Labour Party recognised that this was a good opportunity to take everything and give nothing.
The Green Party, at least, has seen the error of its ways. The idea of a progressive alliance has been killed off by Labour. This situation will not be repeated.
That is my argument that I have always said...you should be pleased to pay more tax because it shows that you have something worth taxing...
Very good reply. I do not think the answers to our country future somehow are rooted in the past, either from those ideological reactionaries who hark back to the empire or from the ideological left who see solutions in the state leftism of the 1970's. The fact that both sets are likely to get a go at driving the bus over the next decade or so dismays me too.
Every cloud though....at least completing my tax returns will be quicker with much less to show in ten years time
"Goldman Sachs has reported its first quarterly loss since 2011, due to a $4.4bn charge from the Trump administrations new tax bill"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-42662091
Corbyn had an excellent campaign. He spoke well, he enthused younger voters and others often not inclined to vote and his campaign seemed relatively organised (unlike May's). It is absurd to pretend that this did not affect the result just because he is of a different sect. Absurd.
NEW THREAD
NEW THREAD
Or, to put it another way, if you take back control, you need to be extra careful to exercise it responsibly.
The government has presided over a very large scale rise in immigration over the last 20 years - while totally failing to invest in the housing and infrastructure needed as a result.
It's not the fault of immigrants - but immigration has surely contributed towards the increased housing demand and shortage or social housing. Cos rising housing demand is in part linked to population growth isn't it?