Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If this YouGov polling is correct then tactical voting looks s

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If this YouGov polling is correct then tactical voting looks set to play a big part in an early general election

As a general rule I really don’t like surveys on things like tactical voting because we are asking a pollster to do something that’s highly complicated and we should retain our sectptism.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited September 2019
    You've also got to factor in spin about who is "winning here", which may be a lot more sophisticated than in the old days. The national polls show the two-party system is now a 4-way dead heat (give or take). How does the aspiring tactical voter in Dunny-on-the-Wold know which two, three or four parties are in contention locally? The result of the last election will be of no help. Microtargeted spin and lies from party headquarters and Russian trolls?
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    Also notable that the Lib Dem voters who would vote tactically would pick Corbyn's Labour over the Tories by a 4:1 margin
  • You've also got to factor in spin about who is "winning here", which may be a lot more sophisticated than in the old days. The national polls show the two-party system is now a 4-way dead heat (give or take). How does the aspiring tactical voter in Dunny-on-the-Wold know which two, three or four parties are in contention locally? The result of the last election will be of no help. Microtargeted spin and lies from party headquarters and Russian trolls?

    Paper through the letterbox and visits from canvassers would be one way.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,446
    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
  • The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.

    Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,569
    So todays COMRES VI if Polls shows Jezza is PM in all scenarios except if Jester goes to jail
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154
    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    No it won’t.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,569

    The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.

    Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.

    Yeah right get off the drugs David
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,912
    edited September 2019
    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    The banks had already extended £650m in overdraft to TC, they needed £200m more just to get to the end of this month.

    The majority of the repatriation cost will be bourne by ATOL and insurers, not government.

    The CEO of Condor was quoted this morning as saying he had enough in the bank for a few days more, and was asking the German government for €200m bailout.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154
    One of the side effects of McDonnell’s stupid promise to bail out companies in trouble like Thomas Cook is that it shields directors of such companies from an investigation into their failings, not something you’d have thought he’d want - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thomas-cook-collapse-investigation-launched-after-bosses-received-30m-tfr66zbbh.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    TGOHF said:
    Which way do you reckon it's going, Harry ?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,446
    Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    No it won’t.
    yes it will and if you then include all the unemployment , knock on to suppliers etc it will cost a fortune. Just a loan guarantee and then sale of airline and they would have weathered the storm. Would not be allowed to happen in other countries.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,767
    Do any pollsters assess the public's awareness of the situation in their own constituency? Could be quite interesting.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    The banks had already extended £650m in overdraft to TC, they needed £200m more just to get to the end of this month.

    The majority of the repatriation cost will be bourne by ATOL and insurers, not government.
    And once again how can you be sure of that when the Monarch repatriations ended up costing more than £60m (at the last count) due to the Government's inability to recover money.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,448
    I mean, this level of tactical thinking even by a large minority of voters will make predicting the outcome of any GE so difficult. I will vote LD, even though I don't really agree with them hugely, just because they can beat the Tory in my seat and Lab / Greens can't.

    I do wonder if, for once, it looks like the left may come up with some grassroots tactical agreement, whilst BXP and Cons take chunks out of each other, especially if any GE is after Oct 31 and we've not left.
  • Talking about the Vote Leave promises sounds a little twee these days. At one time it was a political movement of sorts, but it's long since morphed into being a mere arm of the Boris Johnson career-enhancement squad.
  • Cyclefree said:

    One of the side effects of McDonnell’s stupid promise to bail out companies in trouble like Thomas Cook is that it shields directors of such companies from an investigation into their failings, not something you’d have thought he’d want - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thomas-cook-collapse-investigation-launched-after-bosses-received-30m-tfr66zbbh.

    It's OK, all company directors will volunteer for political re-education anyway, especially those who have the temerity to run successful companies.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,912
    edited September 2019
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    The banks had already extended £650m in overdraft to TC, they needed £200m more just to get to the end of this month.

    The majority of the repatriation cost will be bourne by ATOL and insurers, not government.
    And once again how can you be sure of that when the Monarch repatriations ended up costing more than £60m (at the last count) due to the Government's inability to recover money.
    Again Monarch was only 20% covered by ATOL, TC is around 80%.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,985
    TGOHF said:
    Would you expect more of the losing side in attendance?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695
    edited September 2019

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the side effects of McDonnell’s stupid promise to bail out companies in trouble like Thomas Cook is that it shields directors of such companies from an investigation into their failings, not something you’d have thought he’d want - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thomas-cook-collapse-investigation-launched-after-bosses-received-30m-tfr66zbbh.

    It's OK, all company directors will volunteer for political re-education anyway, especially those who have the temerity to run successful companies.
    Successful companies after the Labour Party gets into power? You're not thinking straight.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    “A concern on the polling above is that members of the YouGov panel might have a tendency to be more politically involved than the norm and therefore, possibly, more likely to state that they would use their vote in a tactical way.”

    I’m pressing the non existent ‘like’ button. Possibly my favourite ever comment in a PB thread header
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,546
    edited September 2019
    Emily Thornberry's speech seems to be completely deranged, judging by the Guardian summary. I presume this means she's on manoeuvres for a leadership bid?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426
    malcolmg said:

    Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.

    I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise.
    UK anthem is absolute pants.
    Please! That was the German national anthem when the Nazis were in power.

    The first verse was abandoned just after the end of the second world war. If you sing those words in Germany today, people will think you are a Neo-nazi.

    But the tune is good, and written by Haydn an Austrian!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,446
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    The banks had already extended £650m in overdraft to TC, they needed £200m more just to get to the end of this month.

    The majority of the repatriation cost will be bourne by ATOL and insurers, not government.
    And once again how can you be sure of that when the Monarch repatriations ended up costing more than £60m (at the last count) due to the Government's inability to recover money.
    Was it not nearer the £100M and that does not even look at the jobs associated with supplying all this , the hundreds of shop closures , rates losses and on and on. They can find 4 billion at the drop of a hat for Brexit preparations , 100M wasted on ferries , same on adverts , etc etc.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,912
    edited September 2019
    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    No it won’t.
    yes it will and if you then include all the unemployment , knock on to suppliers etc it will cost a fortune. Just a loan guarantee and then sale of airline and they would have weathered the storm. Would not be allowed to happen in other countries.
    From another forum:
    It's all very simple really.

    Thomas Cook had £1.7 billion of debt owed to the banks.

    A look at its last published accounts for y/e 30/9/18 (a year ago) showed;
    £4.2 billion current liabilities
    £2.1 billion in non-current liabilities
    £6.3 billion total liabilities (the previous two added together)
    Net assets of just £291 million
    Accumulated losses of £1.965 billion.
    (Source: Thomas Gook Group Annual Report and Accounts 2018)

    What it must have been like 12 months later I can't begin to imagine.

    Bankruptcy was inevitable when the cashflow could no longer cover interest payments and the costs of running the business at the end of the summer holiday period when TC should have been making money hand over fist.
    TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the side effects of McDonnell’s stupid promise to bail out companies in trouble like Thomas Cook is that it shields directors of such companies from an investigation into their failings, not something you’d have thought he’d want - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thomas-cook-collapse-investigation-launched-after-bosses-received-30m-tfr66zbbh.

    It's OK, all company directors will volunteer for political re-education anyway, especially those who have the temerity to run successful companies.
    Successful companies after a Labour Party gets into power? You're not thinking straight.
    I thought you bankers were all for Mcdonnell ?
  • The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.

    Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.

    Another way of looking at it is how strong the anti Boris vote is. I think that is more realistic than thinking support for even Corbyn Labour is sub 10%.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,546
    edited September 2019
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the side effects of McDonnell’s stupid promise to bail out companies in trouble like Thomas Cook is that it shields directors of such companies from an investigation into their failings, not something you’d have thought he’d want - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thomas-cook-collapse-investigation-launched-after-bosses-received-30m-tfr66zbbh.

    It's OK, all company directors will volunteer for political re-education anyway, especially those who have the temerity to run successful companies.
    Successful companies after a Labour Party gets into power? You're not thinking straight.
    True, I should have written 'once-successful'.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179
    eristdoof said:

    malcolmg said:

    Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.

    I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise.
    UK anthem is absolute pants.
    Please! That was the German national anthem when the Nazis were in power.

    The first verse was abandoned just after the end of the second world war. If you sing those words in Germany today, people will think you are a Neo-nazi.

    But the tune is good, and written by Haydn an Austrian!
    One of the Austrian masterstrokes is to convince the world that Hitler was German!
  • The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.

    Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.

    I think that's been fairly clear for many years now when so much of Labour campaigning has relied on FPTP and anti-Toryism - "Only Labour can stop the Tories"

    How much of the Tory vote might be similarly an anti-Labour vote?
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    I'd be unsurprised if tactical voting is significant. Plus it gives non-mental Labour types a way of saying they're still *really* Labour but this was just a one-off vote for the Lib Dems because of the EU.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,446
    eristdoof said:

    malcolmg said:

    Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.

    I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise.
    UK anthem is absolute pants.
    Please! That was the German national anthem when the Nazis were in power.

    The first verse was abandoned just after the end of the second world war. If you sing those words in Germany today, people will think you are a Neo-nazi.

    But the tune is good, and written by Haydn an Austrian!
    So what our National anthem was same when Britain was slaughtering people over the globe and closer to home. I did not say I liked the Nazis , I said I like the anthem/tune.
  • RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    Would you expect more of the losing side in attendance?
    I think nothing at all can be read into this. The four not attending presumably have other things to do and, if they are putting their name to the majority or a dissenting judgment, have absolutely no reason to be there in person other than the sense of occasion. People will try to read the tea-leaves but with about as much effect.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I'd be unsurprised if tactical voting is significant. Plus it gives non-mental Labour types a way of saying they're still *really* Labour but this was just a one-off vote for the Lib Dems because of the EU.

    There will plenty of websites and Facebook pages explaining the situation and setting out the possibilities.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,446
    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    No it won’t.
    yes it will and if you then include all the unemployment , knock on to suppliers etc it will cost a fortune. Just a loan guarantee and then sale of airline and they would have weathered the storm. Would not be allowed to happen in other countries.
    From another forum:
    It's all very simple really.

    Thomas Cook had £1.7 billion of debt owed to the banks.

    A look at its last published accounts for y/e 30/9/18 (a year ago) showed;
    £4.2 billion current liabilities
    £2.1 billion in non-current liabilities
    £6.3 billion total liabilities (the previous two added together)
    Net assets of just £291 million
    Accumulated losses of £1.965 billion.
    (Source: Thomas Gook Group Annual Report and Accounts 2018)

    What it must have been like 12 months later I can't begin to imagine.

    Bankruptcy was inevitable when the cashflow could no longer cover interest payments and the costs of running the business at the end of the summer holiday period when TC should have been making money hand over fist.
    TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.

    Management were well worth their huge salaries then, bet the bonuses were still large. I retire battered and bruised but still feeling sorry for all the poor sods who lost their jobs.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426
    PaulM said:

    Also notable that the Lib Dem voters who would vote tactically would pick Corbyn's Labour over the Tories by a 4:1 margin

    Probably because LD/Lab tactical voting goes back to at least 1987 and was particularly effective in 1997.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154
    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    No it won’t.
    yes it will and if you then include all the unemployment , knock on to suppliers etc it will cost a fortune. Just a loan guarantee and then sale of airline and they would have weathered the storm. Would not be allowed to happen in other countries.
    They wanted £200 mio cash initially and would then have wanted more and more and more. The company was bust and had been badly run for years. Throwing good money after bad is never a good idea.

    The fact that they didn’t even call administrators in shows that there isn’t any part of it which could be a viable business. What did Thomas Cook offer that couldn’t be got from other better travel companies? What - apart from their name - was their USP?
  • In a world where Leave/Remain identity is far stronger than party identity, these poll findings are wholly unsurprising.

    The open question is whether the Lib Dems can persuade people that they are better placed than Labour to win in given seats.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    edited September 2019

    The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.

    Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.

    I think that's been fairly clear for many years now when so much of Labour campaigning has relied on FPTP and anti-Toryism - "Only Labour can stop the Tories"

    How much of the Tory vote might be similarly an anti-Labour vote?
    Which is why Labour still have 180 safeish seats come the next election. Seats where the Lib Dems (if lucky) poll 5% so it really is a Labour v Tory contest.

    What is also means is that the Left do need the Tories and Brexit to tear each other apart at the next election..
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    edited September 2019
    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    No it won’t.
    yes it will and if you then include all the unemployment , knock on to suppliers etc it will cost a fortune. Just a loan guarantee and then sale of airline and they would have weathered the storm. Would not be allowed to happen in other countries.
    From another forum:
    It's all very simple really.

    Thomas Cook had £1.7 billion of debt owed to the banks.

    A look at its last published accounts for y/e 30/9/18 (a year ago) showed;
    £4.2 billion current liabilities
    £2.1 billion in non-current liabilities
    £6.3 billion total liabilities (the previous two added together)
    Net assets of just £291 million
    Accumulated losses of £1.965 billion.
    (Source: Thomas Gook Group Annual Report and Accounts 2018)

    What it must have been like 12 months later I can't begin to imagine.

    Bankruptcy was inevitable when the cashflow could no longer cover interest payments and the costs of running the business at the end of the summer holiday period when TC should have been making money hand over fist.
    It is very difficult to see how the directors could justify continued trading on those numbers. And that was a year ago.
  • TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the side effects of McDonnell’s stupid promise to bail out companies in trouble like Thomas Cook is that it shields directors of such companies from an investigation into their failings, not something you’d have thought he’d want - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thomas-cook-collapse-investigation-launched-after-bosses-received-30m-tfr66zbbh.

    It's OK, all company directors will volunteer for political re-education anyway, especially those who have the temerity to run successful companies.
    Successful companies after a Labour Party gets into power? You're not thinking straight.
    True, I should have written 'once-successful'.
    Its ok, labour in government will just buy up all these failing companies.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,621
    More than 4x as many Lib Dem voters say they will switch to Lab rather than Tories.

    That sounds like good news for Labour, although they probably need the overall number to get higher.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,985

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    Would you expect more of the losing side in attendance?
    I think nothing at all can be read into this. The four not attending presumably have other things to do and, if they are putting their name to the majority or a dissenting judgment, have absolutely no reason to be there in person other than the sense of occasion. People will try to read the tea-leaves but with about as much effect.
    I may have been over-interpreting TGOHF’s cough. :D
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154
    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    The banks had already extended £650m in overdraft to TC, they needed £200m more just to get to the end of this month.

    The majority of the repatriation cost will be bourne by ATOL and insurers, not government.
    And once again how can you be sure of that when the Monarch repatriations ended up costing more than £60m (at the last count) due to the Government's inability to recover money.
    Was it not nearer the £100M and that does not even look at the jobs associated with supplying all this , the hundreds of shop closures , rates losses and on and on. They can find 4 billion at the drop of a hat for Brexit preparations , 100M wasted on ferries , same on adverts , etc etc.
    The fact that money can be wasted on other equally stupid stuff does not justify wasting it on this stupid example.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the side effects of McDonnell’s stupid promise to bail out companies in trouble like Thomas Cook is that it shields directors of such companies from an investigation into their failings, not something you’d have thought he’d want - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thomas-cook-collapse-investigation-launched-after-bosses-received-30m-tfr66zbbh.

    It's OK, all company directors will volunteer for political re-education anyway, especially those who have the temerity to run successful companies.
    Successful companies after a Labour Party gets into power? You're not thinking straight.
    True, I should have written 'once-successful'.
    Once she establishes herself as the "moderate"* choice, does she eat Starmer's price ?

    I've backed her back to somewhere near field green anyway.

    * It's all relative
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,446
    Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    No it won’t.
    yes it will and if you then include all the unemployment , knock on to suppliers etc it will cost a fortune. Just a loan guarantee and then sale of airline and they would have weathered the storm. Would not be allowed to happen in other countries.
    They wanted £200 mio cash initially and would then have wanted more and more and more. The company was bust and had been badly run for years. Throwing good money after bad is never a good idea.

    The fact that they didn’t even call administrators in shows that there isn’t any part of it which could be a viable business. What did Thomas Cook offer that couldn’t be got from other better travel companies? What - apart from their name - was their USP?
    I have already capitulated on another post, I am licking my wounds.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    The 2% of Corbynites that will back blue to defeat Swinson are a niche group
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154

    Emily Thornberry's speech seems to be completely deranged, judging by the Guardian summary. I presume this means she's on manoeuvres for a leadership bid?


    How has her derangement manifested itself?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,767
    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    No it won’t.
    yes it will and if you then include all the unemployment , knock on to suppliers etc it will cost a fortune. Just a loan guarantee and then sale of airline and they would have weathered the storm. Would not be allowed to happen in other countries.
    From another forum:
    It's all very simple really.

    Thomas Cook had £1.7 billion of debt owed to the banks.

    A look at its last published accounts for y/e 30/9/18 (a year ago) showed;
    £4.2 billion current liabilities
    £2.1 billion in non-current liabilities
    £6.3 billion total liabilities (the previous two added together)
    Net assets of just £291 million
    Accumulated losses of £1.965 billion.
    (Source: Thomas Gook Group Annual Report and Accounts 2018)

    What it must have been like 12 months later I can't begin to imagine.

    Bankruptcy was inevitable when the cashflow could no longer cover interest payments and the costs of running the business at the end of the summer holiday period when TC should have been making money hand over fist.
    TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.

    What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
  • In a world where Leave/Remain identity is far stronger than party identity, these poll findings are wholly unsurprising.

    The open question is whether the Lib Dems can persuade people that they are better placed than Labour to win in given seats.

    The Tories should be trying to create as much ambiguity about their challengers as possible. Half their leaflets should say Labour are the threat, the other half LDs!
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    The 2% of Corbynites that will back blue to defeat Swinson are a niche group

    I fully expect her to back the hanging of white van men
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,621

    In a world where Leave/Remain identity is far stronger than party identity, these poll findings are wholly unsurprising.

    The open question is whether the Lib Dems can persuade people that they are better placed than Labour to win in given seats.

    Presumably Gina Miller will produce a similar tactical voting website for the main elections, updated to suggest people vote for Labour now that they back a 2nd referendum?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the side effects of McDonnell’s stupid promise to bail out companies in trouble like Thomas Cook is that it shields directors of such companies from an investigation into their failings, not something you’d have thought he’d want - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thomas-cook-collapse-investigation-launched-after-bosses-received-30m-tfr66zbbh.

    It's OK, all company directors will volunteer for political re-education anyway, especially those who have the temerity to run successful companies.
    Successful companies after a Labour Party gets into power? You're not thinking straight.
    I thought you bankers were all for Mcdonnell ?
    He seems such a reasonable bloke.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,942
    edited September 2019
    It seems labour ministers are all trying to outdo themselves on who can come up with the most hard left policies for their conference speeches.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    TGOHF said:
    Majority of the Court backs the Govt.

    Lady Hale to give the dissenting judgment for the minority.

    Maybe....
  • The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.

    Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.

    Yeah right get off the drugs David
    Would that be the same complacency that Scottish Labour showed? How are they doing these days?

    The figures are there for you to see. It's not my fault if you deliberately ignore them.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426
    I have a problem with the above questions. Tactical voters should be responding to the original question based on their own constituency. So a LD/Lab tactical voter in a Lab/Con constituency will answer Lab. They will then not be eligible for the relevant question: "How would you vote in a Con/Lab constiuency - asked only to those who will vote LD/Green"

    The will be asked the irrelevant question "How would you vote in a Con/LD constiuency - asked only to those who will vote Lab/Green". It's irrelevant because they are not in a Con/LD constituency.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,912
    edited September 2019
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    No it won’t.
    yes it will and if you then include all the unemployment , knock on to suppliers etc it will cost a fortune. Just a loan guarantee and then sale of airline and they would have weathered the storm. Would not be allowed to happen in other countries.
    From another forum:
    It's all very simple really.

    Thomas Cook had £1.7 billion of debt owed to the banks.

    A look at its last published accounts for y/e 30/9/18 (a year ago) showed;
    £4.2 billion current liabilities
    £2.1 billion in non-current liabilities
    £6.3 billion total liabilities (the previous two added together)
    Net assets of just £291 million
    Accumulated losses of £1.965 billion.
    (Source: Thomas Gook Group Annual Report and Accounts 2018)

    What it must have been like 12 months later I can't begin to imagine.

    Bankruptcy was inevitable when the cashflow could no longer cover interest payments and the costs of running the business at the end of the summer holiday period when TC should have been making money hand over fist.

    TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
    What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
    Good question.

    For the last few months they’ve been looking at a debt/equity swap, and an injection of cash from new investors, but those talks broke down a week or two ago.

    Looking at the numbers, it’s no surprise at all that the banks eventually pulled the plug, any more cash put in would have just been throwing good money after bad. They needed £200m cash simply to make it to the end of this month, to make payroll and bills from suppliers.

    Apparently all their aircraft in Manchester have been repossessed by the airport authority over unpaid bills. The administrators will have to sort these out before they can dispose of the planes - most of which are under leases anyway, there’s very few assets in the company.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Emily Thornberry's speech seems to be completely deranged, judging by the Guardian summary. I presume this means she's on manoeuvres for a leadership bid?


    How has her derangement manifested itself?
    Well, we could start with this bit:

    Well I just ask you, conference: How can you lead a free world when you are locking toddlers in cages? How can you lead a free world when you’re trying to take away the freedom of women to control their own bodies? And how can you lead a free world when you are actively supporting the suppression and annexation of Palestine?

    Donald Trump is not the leader of the free world. He is the role model, the guiding light, for all those ‘strongman’ politicians around the world who are trying to tear freedom apart.

    And no-one has taken more inspiration from him than the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman.


    It doesn't get better.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    edited September 2019
    tlg86 said:

    What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?

    Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.

    These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,569

    The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.

    Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.

    Yeah right get off the drugs David
    Would that be the same complacency that Scottish Labour showed? How are they doing these days?

    The figures are there for you to see. It's not my fault if you deliberately ignore them.
    You were a 2017 Corbyn underestimator too weren't you.
  • The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.

    Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.

    Yeah right get off the drugs David
    Would that be the same complacency that Scottish Labour showed? How are they doing these days?

    The figures are there for you to see. It's not my fault if you deliberately ignore them.
    You were a 2017 Corbyn underestimator too weren't you.
    Quite the opposite, wasn't Mr Herdson the canary in the mine who first alerted many of us to how Corbyn was doing?
  • The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.

    Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.

    I think that's been fairly clear for many years now when so much of Labour campaigning has relied on FPTP and anti-Toryism - "Only Labour can stop the Tories"

    How much of the Tory vote might be similarly an anti-Labour vote?
    That's a fair point. But at the moment, it's not really an issue - though we can see in seats like Hallam how a Tory vote can evaporate when there's an acceptable alternative to keep Labour out.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179

    tlg86 said:

    What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?

    Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.

    These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.

    Didn't one of TC's execs get a substantial bonus recently.

    I once had dealings with a firm where the CEO's bonus was turnover related. I thought it was a one-off.

  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    Would you expect more of the losing side in attendance?
    Too much is being read into whose turning up. The others could have had commitments tomorrow .

    People of course would like to be able to draw conclusions , however of the 4 not appearing I’m pretty sure two of those will be on the opposing side . Lord Sales will likely find against the government and Lord Carnwath for them .
  • It seems labour ministers are all trying to outdo themselves on who can come up with the most hard left policies for their conference speeches.

    I'm personally a big fan of "Head injuries - don't knock it until you've tried it"
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,448

    Cyclefree said:

    Emily Thornberry's speech seems to be completely deranged, judging by the Guardian summary. I presume this means she's on manoeuvres for a leadership bid?


    How has her derangement manifested itself?
    Well, we could start with this bit:

    Well I just ask you, conference: How can you lead a free world when you are locking toddlers in cages? How can you lead a free world when you’re trying to take away the freedom of women to control their own bodies? And how can you lead a free world when you are actively supporting the suppression and annexation of Palestine?

    Donald Trump is not the leader of the free world. He is the role model, the guiding light, for all those ‘strongman’ politicians around the world who are trying to tear freedom apart.

    And no-one has taken more inspiration from him than the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman.


    It doesn't get better.
    Where is she wrong, though? Undiplomatic, maybe. Succinct and troubling summary of international relations at the moment. Yeah, kinda.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,985
    nico67 said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    Would you expect more of the losing side in attendance?
    Too much is being read into whose turning up. The others could have had commitments tomorrow .

    People of course would like to be able to draw conclusions , however of the 4 not appearing I’m pretty sure two of those will be on the opposing side . Lord Sales will likely find against the government and Lord Carnwath for them .
    Remind me how much reading was done into the delay? :p
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    148grss said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Emily Thornberry's speech seems to be completely deranged, judging by the Guardian summary. I presume this means she's on manoeuvres for a leadership bid?


    How has her derangement manifested itself?
    Well, we could start with this bit:

    Well I just ask you, conference: How can you lead a free world when you are locking toddlers in cages? How can you lead a free world when you’re trying to take away the freedom of women to control their own bodies? And how can you lead a free world when you are actively supporting the suppression and annexation of Palestine?

    Donald Trump is not the leader of the free world. He is the role model, the guiding light, for all those ‘strongman’ politicians around the world who are trying to tear freedom apart.

    And no-one has taken more inspiration from him than the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman.


    It doesn't get better.
    Where is she wrong, though? Undiplomatic, maybe. Succinct and troubling summary of international relations at the moment. Yeah, kinda.
    Well, he's obviously wrong re prime inspiration. It's Vladimir Putin who is his true hero.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    RobD said:

    nico67 said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    Would you expect more of the losing side in attendance?
    Too much is being read into whose turning up. The others could have had commitments tomorrow .

    People of course would like to be able to draw conclusions , however of the 4 not appearing I’m pretty sure two of those will be on the opposing side . Lord Sales will likely find against the government and Lord Carnwath for them .
    Remind me how much reading was done into the delay? :p
    True!
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426
    malcolmg said:

    eristdoof said:

    malcolmg said:

    Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.

    I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise.
    UK anthem is absolute pants.
    Please! That was the German national anthem when the Nazis were in power.

    The first verse was abandoned just after the end of the second world war. If you sing those words in Germany today, people will think you are a Neo-nazi.

    But the tune is good, and written by Haydn an Austrian!
    So what our National anthem was same when Britain was slaughtering people over the globe and closer to home. I did not say I liked the Nazis , I said I like the anthem/tune.
    I did not claim that you like Nazis. I pointed out that you are using language which is both out of date and is today considered extreme right wing.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    edited September 2019
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.

    What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
    Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179
    edited September 2019
    148grss said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Emily Thornberry's speech seems to be completely deranged, judging by the Guardian summary. I presume this means she's on manoeuvres for a leadership bid?


    How has her derangement manifested itself?
    Well, we could start with this bit:

    Well I just ask you, conference: How can you lead a free world when you are locking toddlers in cages? How can you lead a free world when you’re trying to take away the freedom of women to control their own bodies? And how can you lead a free world when you are actively supporting the suppression and annexation of Palestine?

    Donald Trump is not the leader of the free world. He is the role model, the guiding light, for all those ‘strongman’ politicians around the world who are trying to tear freedom apart.

    And no-one has taken more inspiration from him than the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman.


    It doesn't get better.
    Where is she wrong, though? Undiplomatic, maybe. Succinct and troubling summary of international relations at the moment. Yeah, kinda.
    Pulls me Labwards, away from LibDemmery!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695

    The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.

    Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.

    Yeah right get off the drugs David
    Would that be the same complacency that Scottish Labour showed? How are they doing these days?

    The figures are there for you to see. It's not my fault if you deliberately ignore them.
    You were a 2017 Corbyn underestimator too weren't you.
    Where's he going to find more votes than then from?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the side effects of McDonnell’s stupid promise to bail out companies in trouble like Thomas Cook is that it shields directors of such companies from an investigation into their failings, not something you’d have thought he’d want - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thomas-cook-collapse-investigation-launched-after-bosses-received-30m-tfr66zbbh.

    It's OK, all company directors will volunteer for political re-education anyway, especially those who have the temerity to run successful companies.
    Successful companies after a Labour Party gets into power? You're not thinking straight.
    I thought you bankers were all for Mcdonnell ?
    He seems such a reasonable bloke.
    He looks and speaks like one of those corrupt Met detectives from the 1970’s: superficially charming, utterly untrustworthy and quite willing to have violence used to get his way.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    No it won’t.
    yes it will and if you then include all the unemployment , knock on to suppliers etc it will cost a fortune. Just a loan guarantee and then sale of airline and they would have weathered the storm. Would not be allowed to happen in other countries.
    From another forum:
    It's all very simple really.

    Thomas Cook had £1.7 billion of debt owed to the banks.

    A look at its last published accounts for y/e 30/9/18 (a year ago) showed;
    £4.2 billion current liabilities
    £2.1 billion in non-current liabilities
    £6.3 billion total liabilities (the previous two added together)
    Net assets of just £291 million
    Accumulated losses of £1.965 billion.
    (Source: Thomas Gook Group Annual Report and Accounts 2018)

    What it must have been like 12 months later I can't begin to imagine.

    Bankruptcy was inevitable when the cashflow could no longer cover interest payments and the costs of running the business at the end of the summer holiday period when TC should have been making money hand over fist.
    TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
    What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?

    Even bankers have difficulty understanding the sunk costs fallacy.

    And crystallised losses never look good on the books.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the side effects of McDonnell’s stupid promise to bail out companies in trouble like Thomas Cook is that it shields directors of such companies from an investigation into their failings, not something you’d have thought he’d want - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thomas-cook-collapse-investigation-launched-after-bosses-received-30m-tfr66zbbh.

    It's OK, all company directors will volunteer for political re-education anyway, especially those who have the temerity to run successful companies.
    Successful companies after a Labour Party gets into power? You're not thinking straight.
    I thought you bankers were all for Mcdonnell ?
    He seems such a reasonable bloke.
    He looks and speaks like one of those corrupt Met detectives from the 1970’s: superficially charming, utterly untrustworthy and quite willing to have violence used to get his way.
    Our views on him are very similar.
  • Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    No it won’t.
    yes it will and if you then include all the unemployment , knock on to suppliers etc it will cost a fortune. Just a loan guarantee and then sale of airline and they would have weathered the storm. Would not be allowed to happen in other countries.
    They wanted £200 mio cash initially and would then have wanted more and more and more. The company was bust and had been badly run for years. Throwing good money after bad is never a good idea.

    The fact that they didn’t even call administrators in shows that there isn’t any part of it which could be a viable business. What did Thomas Cook offer that couldn’t be got from other better travel companies? What - apart from their name - was their USP?
    Their USP was that in an age of internet comparison websites and agencies, they have 500 physical locations through which they needed to pay taxes and rates and wages etc

    There's even one by the tills in my local Supermarket, though I've only ever seen Thomas Cook staff and not one single shopper in it!
  • Jonny Bairstow has been left out of England's squad for the Tests in New Zealand, while uncapped quartet Matthew Parkinson, Dom Sibley, Zak Crawley and Saqib Mahmood have all been called up.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    edited September 2019
    Cyclefree said:



    Even bankers have difficulty understanding the sunk costs fallacy.

    And crystallised losses never look good on the books.

    It's RBS. They can't tell black from red.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    One of the side effects of McDonnell’s stupid promise to bail out companies in trouble like Thomas Cook is that it shields directors of such companies from an investigation into their failings, not something you’d have thought he’d want - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thomas-cook-collapse-investigation-launched-after-bosses-received-30m-tfr66zbbh.

    It's OK, all company directors will volunteer for political re-education anyway, especially those who have the temerity to run successful companies.
    Successful companies after a Labour Party gets into power? You're not thinking straight.
    I thought you bankers were all for Mcdonnell ?
    He seems such a reasonable bloke.
    He looks and speaks like one of those corrupt Met detectives from the 1970’s: superficially charming, utterly untrustworthy and quite willing to have violence used to get his way.
    Compared with Boris at least he merely looks willing to have violence used - Boris has already been cut doing that.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    malcolmg said:

    It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
    No it won’t.
    yes it will and if you then include all the unemployment , knock on to suppliers etc it will cost a fortune. Just a loan guarantee and then sale of airline and they would have weathered the storm. Would not be allowed to happen in other countries.
    From another forum:
    It's all very simple really.

    Thomas Cook had £1.7 billion of debt owed to the banks.

    A look at its last published accounts for y/e 30/9/18 (a year ago) showed;
    £4.2 billion current liabilities
    £2.1 billion in non-current liabilities
    £6.3 billion total liabilities (the previous two added together)
    Net assets of just £291 million
    Accumulated losses of £1.965 billion.
    (Source: Thomas Gook Group Annual Report and Accounts 2018)

    What it must have been like 12 months later I can't begin to imagine.

    Bankruptcy was inevitable when the cashflow could no longer cover interest payments and the costs of running the business at the end of the summer holiday period when TC should have been making money hand over fist.
    It is very difficult to see how the directors could justify continued trading on those numbers. And that was a year ago.

    Equally difficult to see how they could justify paying themselves the sorts of salaries they were paying themselves.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,922
    edited September 2019

    tlg86 said:

    What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?

    Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.

    These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.

    There are surely better solutions available with technology, if not ready to be rolled out now, within a couple of years.

    Set up a rule that if you have 1m plus banking customers you need to integrate your basic banking services with the local post office if you dont have a branch within 5 miles. So customers can access RBS, Barclays, Santander etc from a local post office (that in turn is more likely to be economically viable) rather than travelling 28 miles. Why are none of the parties even thinking about new solutions beyond taxing, restricting and banning?
  • 148grss said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Emily Thornberry's speech seems to be completely deranged, judging by the Guardian summary. I presume this means she's on manoeuvres for a leadership bid?


    How has her derangement manifested itself?
    Well, we could start with this bit:

    Well I just ask you, conference: How can you lead a free world when you are locking toddlers in cages? How can you lead a free world when you’re trying to take away the freedom of women to control their own bodies? And how can you lead a free world when you are actively supporting the suppression and annexation of Palestine?

    Donald Trump is not the leader of the free world. He is the role model, the guiding light, for all those ‘strongman’ politicians around the world who are trying to tear freedom apart.

    And no-one has taken more inspiration from him than the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman.


    It doesn't get better.
    Where is she wrong, though? Undiplomatic, maybe. Succinct and troubling summary of international relations at the moment. Yeah, kinda.
    It's utter garbage. Leaving aside the ludicrous hyperbole of the first paragraph I quoted, most of the 'strongman' politicians around the world were there, or their predecessors were, long before Trump, and not a single one of them has Trump as a role model or guiding light (most of them are too bright for that). And Trump hasn't had his henchmen kidnap or murder inconvenient journalists. OK, she doesn't like Trump - nor do I for that matter - but, really, an aspiring Foreign Secretary really should at least try to keep a vaguely sane view of the world.
  • rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.

    What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
    Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
    Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,569

    The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.

    Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.

    Yeah right get off the drugs David
    Would that be the same complacency that Scottish Labour showed? How are they doing these days?

    The figures are there for you to see. It's not my fault if you deliberately ignore them.
    You were a 2017 Corbyn underestimator too weren't you.
    Quite the opposite, wasn't Mr Herdson the canary in the mine who first alerted many of us to how Corbyn was doing?
    Only on the last week before GE 2017 and then he hedged his bets a couple of days later from my memory anyway
  • tlg86 said:

    What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?

    Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.

    These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.

    There are surely better solutions available with technology, if not ready to be rolled out now, within a couple of years.

    Set up a rule that if you have 1m plus banking customers you need to integrate your basic banking services with the local post office if you dont have a branch within 5 miles. So customers can access RBS, Barclays, Santander etc from a local post office (that in turn is more likely to be economically viable) rather than travelling 28 miles. Why are none of the parties even thinking about new solutions beyond taxing, restricting and banning?
    That's already a rule. You can do business banking and all other sorts of banking in your local Post Office.

    A lot of people don't realise just how much can be done in the Post Office.
  • 148grss said:
    That's really crass. CPOs are vital, but the key thing is there has to be a need for the property: usually for a development that is seen for the greater good. They are relatively rare, and are quite hard to get as well. It is a lengthy and understandably expensive procedure.

    What is being talked about is chalk and cheese.
  • rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.

    What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
    Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
    Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
    Doesn't even a leased plane have value?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Checking Thomas Cook Accounts -

    Goodwill valued at £2.585 billion net
    (Seperately) Brand names valued at £246 million net

    Net Assets £291 million

    So knocking off (Impaired) goodwill and "brand names" gives us net negative equity of -£2.54 Bn.

    I guess a couple of hundred million would have kept the ship floating along for another month or so but they'd soon be knocking again.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Cyclefree said:

    Emily Thornberry's speech seems to be completely deranged, judging by the Guardian summary. I presume this means she's on manoeuvres for a leadership bid?

    How has her derangement manifested itself?
    I think mildly incoherent more accurate.

    https://labour.org.uk/press/emily-thornberry-speaking-labour-party-conference/
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.

    What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
    Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
    Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
    Doesn't even a leased plane have value?
    Not to the lessee .......
This discussion has been closed.