politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After another stormy period punters make it a 56% chance that
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After another stormy period punters make it a 56% chance that Trump won’t survive a full first term
Returning once again to what continues to be the biggest political betting market in the UK at the moment – is Trump going to complete a full first term?
Comments
-
Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.0 -
I see vanillaforums is having anothe one of those days.
0 -
You need a majority of the House of Representatives to begin the impeachment process and 2/3 of the Senate to convict so unless the Democrats win both the House of Representatives and a comfortable majority in the Senate next year there is little chance of Trump departing before the end of his first term0
-
-
Yes, impeachment’s a (very deliberately) high bar. The other options are death, resignation or Amendment 25. As far as I understand it he’s in good health, and doesn’t understand failure except in other people. The A25 route has never been used before and is fraught with danger.HYUFD said:You need a majority of the House of Representatives to begin the impeachment process and 2/3 of the Senate to convict so unless the Democrats win both the House of Representatives and a comfortable majority in the Senate next year there is little chance of Trump departing before the end of his first term
I’d say he’s 80/20 to complete the term, so remaining is value. There’s also other bets around on departure date that have “2020 or later” as an option, which will pay out more than a year earlier.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpvXmwybQ6AIshmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.0 -
Evening all
Perhaps the discussion point of the day, at least according to LBC, was or were May's comments on executive pay. It's interesting to see a Conservative Party Prime Minister being as strongly criticised as May was by that arch-Lefty Sam Bowman from that group of Trots known as the Adam Smith Institute.
Bowman's not unreasonable point was that private companies could pay their CEOs what ever they liked and that was an integral part of capitalism. He was less able to defend the pay rise of the head of British Gas especially with 16% price rises in the pipeline (so to speak) and spluttered something about the wholesale price of gas.
May's remarks seem to channel her inner Ed Miliband as it's exactly the kind of well-meaning but impractical proposal he would put forward. Naming and shaming and registers shout nothing more than impotence and there's a wider question about our economic culture.
"Who will speak for the capitalists ?" I mused. Not, I seems, Theresa May's Conservatives.
0 -
Trump is just too unpredictable to risk cash on. I agree he isn't likely to be impeached, but he could just get bored and jack it all in tomorrow. Equally he could be there for 8 years. Who knows? Not me.0
-
at what point do the Adam Institute drift in to defending corporatism rather than capitalismstodge said:Evening all
Perhaps the discussion point of the day, at least according to LBC, was or were May's comments on executive pay. It's interesting to see a Conservative Party Prime Minister being as strongly criticised as May was by that arch-Lefty Sam Bowman from that group of Trots known as the Adam Smith Institute.
Bowman's not unreasonable point was that private companies could pay their CEOs what ever they liked and that was an integral part of capitalism. He was less able to defend the pay rise of the head of British Gas especially with 16% price rises in the pipeline (so to speak) and spluttered something about the wholesale price of gas.
May's remarks seem to channel her inner Ed Miliband as it's exactly the kind of well-meaning but impractical proposal he would put forward. Naming and shaming and registers shout nothing more than impotence and there's a wider question about our economic culture.
"Who will speak for the capitalists ?" I mused. Not, I seems, Theresa May's Conservatives.0 -
All bets are about things which are uncertain. That's kinda the idea.dixiedean said:Trump is just too unpredictable to risk cash on. I agree he isn't likely to be impeached, but he could just get bored and jack it all in tomorrow. Equally he could be there for 8 years. Who knows? Not me.
Personally I think that the market has this wrong, and he's much more likely to survive until the end of the current term than the odds imply. However, it's rather a long time to tie up your money for a shortish-odds bet.0 -
This twitter thread gives a flavour of the Sheriff:Ishmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.
https://twitter.com/phoenixnewtimes/status/9012633840873349140 -
Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/0 -
2020 or later is a very good bet as while I think the Democrats will pick up the House in the 2018 midterms the GOP will hold the Senate and any moves towards impeachment will be easily defeated. I also think it will most likely be a Trump v Warren presidential election in 2020 and Trump will narrowly win it, Warren is too left liberal for the average American despite their reservations about Trump, there may also be an independent Kasich-Hickenlooper ticket which while it won't win will divide the opposition to Trump voteSandpit said:
Yes, impeachment’s a (very deliberately) high bar. The other options are death, resignation or Amendment 25. As far as I understand it he’s in good health, and doesn’t understand failure except in other people. The A25 route has never been used before and is fraught with danger.HYUFD said:You need a majority of the House of Representatives to begin the impeachment process and 2/3 of the Senate to convict so unless the Democrats win both the House of Representatives and a comfortable majority in the Senate next year there is little chance of Trump departing before the end of his first term
I’d say he’s 80/20 to complete the term, so remaining is value. There’s also other bets around on departure date that have “2020 or later” as an option, which will pay out more than a year earlier.0 -
I agree of course that bets are about uncertainty. What I was trying to say was that they are also about feeling or instinct. An ability to read events or actions. I just can't read Trump!Richard_Nabavi said:
All bets are about things which are uncertain. That's kinda the idea.dixiedean said:Trump is just too unpredictable to risk cash on. I agree he isn't likely to be impeached, but he could just get bored and jack it all in tomorrow. Equally he could be there for 8 years. Who knows? Not me.
Personally I think that the market has this wrong, and he's much more likely to survive until the end of the current term than the odds imply. However, it's rather a long time to tie up your money for a shortish-odds bet.0 -
Certainly not Labour either, nor Vince really. It may well fall to Boris to push capitalism again but Boris' capitalism is of a populist 'all must have cake' variety ie tax cuts for all, including the rich, let executives be paid whatever shareholders let them be paid and also public sector pay rises and a living wagestodge said:Evening all
Perhaps the discussion point of the day, at least according to LBC, was or were May's comments on executive pay. It's interesting to see a Conservative Party Prime Minister being as strongly criticised as May was by that arch-Lefty Sam Bowman from that group of Trots known as the Adam Smith Institute.
Bowman's not unreasonable point was that private companies could pay their CEOs what ever they liked and that was an integral part of capitalism. He was less able to defend the pay rise of the head of British Gas especially with 16% price rises in the pipeline (so to speak) and spluttered something about the wholesale price of gas.
May's remarks seem to channel her inner Ed Miliband as it's exactly the kind of well-meaning but impractical proposal he would put forward. Naming and shaming and registers shout nothing more than impotence and there's a wider question about our economic culture.
"Who will speak for the capitalists ?" I mused. Not, I seems, Theresa May's Conservatives.0 -
Whoever made the budget in the first place is clearly incompetentmalcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
0 -
I see plc executive pay as a straightforward cartel. If all the airlines privately agree a minimum fare for let's say LHR-JFK then that's me stitched up if I happen to want to fly that route. It is no good claiming that the free market will rectify the situation, because the entry qualifications are quite high - you are not going to find brave little startups undercutting the cartel. Similarly if I want to invest in bigass ftse100 companies, and the ceos have an unspoken agreement about not querying each others' pay, while I would prefer more money as dividends and less as pay, again, I am being stitched up and, again, there is no obvious free market mechanism to alleviate the problem. Therefore "because capitalism" is not a valid argument here.stodge said:Evening all
Perhaps the discussion point of the day, at least according to LBC, was or were May's comments on executive pay. It's interesting to see a Conservative Party Prime Minister being as strongly criticised as May was by that arch-Lefty Sam Bowman from that group of Trots known as the Adam Smith Institute.
Bowman's not unreasonable point was that private companies could pay their CEOs what ever they liked and that was an integral part of capitalism. He was less able to defend the pay rise of the head of British Gas especially with 16% price rises in the pipeline (so to speak) and spluttered something about the wholesale price of gas.
May's remarks seem to channel her inner Ed Miliband as it's exactly the kind of well-meaning but impractical proposal he would put forward. Naming and shaming and registers shout nothing more than impotence and there's a wider question about our economic culture.
"Who will speak for the capitalists ?" I mused. Not, I seems, Theresa May's Conservatives.0 -
I agree, but the political obstacles to impeachment are considerable, and his ego is such that he probably truly believes he's a great president, so I doubt if he will stand down voluntarily.dixiedean said:
I agree of course that bets are about uncertainty. What I was trying to say was that they are also about feeling or instinct. An ability to read events or actions. I just can't read Trump!Richard_Nabavi said:
All bets are about things which are uncertain. That's kinda the idea.dixiedean said:Trump is just too unpredictable to risk cash on. I agree he isn't likely to be impeached, but he could just get bored and jack it all in tomorrow. Equally he could be there for 8 years. Who knows? Not me.
Personally I think that the market has this wrong, and he's much more likely to survive until the end of the current term than the odds imply. However, it's rather a long time to tie up your money for a shortish-odds bet.0 -
Trump v Warren would be almost ideal circumstances for a 3rd party candidate to come through the middle.HYUFD said:
2020 or later is a very good bet as while I think the Democrats will pick up the House in the 2018 midterms the GOP will hold the Senate and any moves towards impeachment will be easily defeated. I also think it will most likely be a Trump v Warren presidential election in 2020 and Trump will narrowly win it, Warren is too left liberal for the average American despite their reservations about Trump, there may also be an independent Kasich-Hickenlooper ticket which while it won't win will divide the opposition to Trump voteSandpit said:
Yes, impeachment’s a (very deliberately) high bar. The other options are death, resignation or Amendment 25. As far as I understand it he’s in good health, and doesn’t understand failure except in other people. The A25 route has never been used before and is fraught with danger.HYUFD said:You need a majority of the House of Representatives to begin the impeachment process and 2/3 of the Senate to convict so unless the Democrats win both the House of Representatives and a comfortable majority in the Senate next year there is little chance of Trump departing before the end of his first term
I’d say he’s 80/20 to complete the term, so remaining is value. There’s also other bets around on departure date that have “2020 or later” as an option, which will pay out more than a year earlier.0 -
I thought the same and was confidently laying 2017/18 exit. But basically bottled it and cashed out for a small loss...Richard_Nabavi said:
All bets are about things which are uncertain. That's kinda the idea.dixiedean said:Trump is just too unpredictable to risk cash on. I agree he isn't likely to be impeached, but he could just get bored and jack it all in tomorrow. Equally he could be there for 8 years. Who knows? Not me.
Personally I think that the market has this wrong, and he's much more likely to survive until the end of the current term than the odds imply. However, it's rather a long time to tie up your money for a shortish-odds bet.
0 -
Only another £255m to save, then and the cost overrun on the Parliament Building will have been offset.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/0 -
Trump to leave in 2020 or later is currently 2.18, as opposed to 2.24 that he makes it until the end of his first term. That looks to be a better value bet, as it pays out more than a year earlier and leaves very little time for impeachment proceedings to conclude.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28074021/market?marketId=1.1290971360 -
Same person who thought it would be finished in 2016?RobD said:
Whoever made the budget in the first place is clearly incompetentmalcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/0 -
Which is why Kasich is making noises about running a joint independent ticket with Hickenlooper, the Democratic governor of Coloradonot_on_fire said:
Trump v Warren would be almost ideal circumstances for a 3rd party candidate to come through the middle.HYUFD said:
2020 or later is a very good bet as while I think the Democrats will pick up the House in the 2018 midterms the GOP will hold the Senate and any moves towards impeachment will be easily defeated. I also think it will most likely be a Trump v Warren presidential election in 2020 and Trump will narrowly win it, Warren is too left liberal for the average American despite their reservations about Trump, there may also be an independent Kasich-Hickenlooper ticket which while it won't win will divide the opposition to Trump voteSandpit said:
Yes, impeachment’s a (very deliberately) high bar. The other options are death, resignation or Amendment 25. As far as I understand it he’s in good health, and doesn’t understand failure except in other people. The A25 route has never been used before and is fraught with danger.HYUFD said:You need a majority of the House of Representatives to begin the impeachment process and 2/3 of the Senate to convict so unless the Democrats win both the House of Representatives and a comfortable majority in the Senate next year there is little chance of Trump departing before the end of his first term
I’d say he’s 80/20 to complete the term, so remaining is value. There’s also other bets around on departure date that have “2020 or later” as an option, which will pay out more than a year earlier.0 -
Didn’t John Kasich’s name come up last week as a possible third party candidate?not_on_fire said:
Trump v Warren would be almost ideal circumstances for a 3rd party candidate to come through the middle.HYUFD said:
2020 or later is a very good bet as while I think the Democrats will pick up the House in the 2018 midterms the GOP will hold the Senate and any moves towards impeachment will be easily defeated. I also think it will most likely be a Trump v Warren presidential election in 2020 and Trump will narrowly win it, Warren is too left liberal for the average American despite their reservations about Trump, there may also be an independent Kasich-Hickenlooper ticket which while it won't win will divide the opposition to Trump voteSandpit said:
Yes, impeachment’s a (very deliberately) high bar. The other options are death, resignation or Amendment 25. As far as I understand it he’s in good health, and doesn’t understand failure except in other people. The A25 route has never been used before and is fraught with danger.HYUFD said:You need a majority of the House of Representatives to begin the impeachment process and 2/3 of the Senate to convict so unless the Democrats win both the House of Representatives and a comfortable majority in the Senate next year there is little chance of Trump departing before the end of his first term
I’d say he’s 80/20 to complete the term, so remaining is value. There’s also other bets around on departure date that have “2020 or later” as an option, which will pay out more than a year earlier.
There’s certainly a huge space in the centre ground of US politics, with the Republicans becoming dominated at the grass roots by the crazies and the Democrats appearing to be doubling down on identity politics and not understanding why they lost to Trump in the first place.0 -
Thanks for yours and the other comments.HYUFD said:
Certainly not Labour either, nor Vince really. It may well fall to Boris to push capitalism again but Boris' capitalism is of a populist 'all must have cake' variety ie tax cuts for all, including the rich, let executives be paid whatever shareholders let them be paid and also public sector pay rises and a living wage
Bowman's argument was that successful CEOs were of huge value to companies and he cited the example of the departure of the CEO of Burberry where the announcement caused the share price to fall sharply. His argument was the value the CEO brought to the company in terms of the share price far outweighed the actual pecuniary value of any salary.
It was an interesting argument and equated successful CEOs to Premier League footballers where the very best could command astronomical fees based on the fact they could win trophies which would enhance the value of the club.
Shouldn't capitalism be about encouraging and rewarding success ? It certainly used to be. The mood is not strong for capitalism at the moment - whether it's the "magic money tree" or Government intervention on executive pay, there's a sense capitalism and the economic culture isn't working for many if not most people.
0 -
A nice theory, aside from the fact ISTR the SNP were against the new parliament building ...Ishmael_Z said:
Only another £255m to save, then and the cost overrun on the Parliament Building will have been offset.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/0 -
Listen listen.
This says it all, I think, about Trump, his`power base' and Arpaio :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkghtyxZ6rc0 -
I agree, capitalism was not really a problem for most people apart from the far left as long as the economy was growing more strongly, their wages were rising faster and public services were receiving funds. In those circumstances they did not complain too much about the excesses of the super richstodge said:
Thanks for yours and the other comments.HYUFD said:
Certainly not Labour either, nor Vince really. It may well fall to Boris to push capitalism again but Boris' capitalism is of a populist 'all must have cake' variety ie tax cuts for all, including the rich, let executives be paid whatever shareholders let them be paid and also public sector pay rises and a living wage
Bowman's argument was that successful CEOs were of huge value to companies and he cited the example of the departure of the CEO of Burberry where the announcement caused the share price to fall sharply. His argument was the value the CEO brought to the company in terms of the share price far outweighed the actual pecuniary value of any salary.
It was an interesting argument and equated successful CEOs to Premier League footballers where the very best could command astronomical fees based on the fact they could win trophies which would enhance the value of the club.
Shouldn't capitalism be about encouraging and rewarding success ? It certainly used to be. The mood is not strong for capitalism at the moment - whether it's the "magic money tree" or Government intervention on executive pay, there's a sense capitalism and the economic culture isn't working for many if not most people.
However with austerity, falling wages etc resentment has grown. What needs to be emphasised is that it is capitalism which ultimately pays wages and provides funds for public services and public sector workers and Boris may be best able to combine a strong defence of capitalism with a gradual easing of austerity0 -
On topic, the politics of this is quite simple.
The Democrats simply need to ensure the GOP is seen to be tied to Trump. It will be very hard for the GOP to disassociate themselves from Trump even if they obstruct some of his ideas in the House and Congress. The chaos works to the Democrats' advantage though with Kelly now as Chief of Staff that advantage will end.
The other aspect is to challenge Trump in 2019-20 on his pledges and promises from 2016. What has he achieved - where is the Wall, where are the jobs, has he brought security and prosperity ? Challenge him on his record and he will have nowhere to hide.
The Labour policy change on leaving the EU can be seen in a similar vein - the 2021-22 campaign will all be about challenging the Conservatives on the post-referendum and A50 pledges and plans.0 -
It is impossible to pick a highlight of his nastiness.Ishmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.
Genuinely think you can use the word "evil" to describe him without being hyperbolic.0 -
Yes but -stodge said:Thanks for yours and the other comments.
Bowman's argument was that successful CEOs were of huge value to companies and he cited the example of the departure of the CEO of Burberry where the announcement caused the share price to fall sharply. His argument was the value the CEO brought to the company in terms of the share price far outweighed the actual pecuniary value of any salary.
It was an interesting argument and equated successful CEOs to Premier League footballers where the very best could command astronomical fees based on the fact they could win trophies which would enhance the value of the club.
Shouldn't capitalism be about encouraging and rewarding success ? It certainly used to be. The mood is not strong for capitalism at the moment - whether it's the "magic money tree" or Government intervention on executive pay, there's a sense capitalism and the economic culture isn't working for many if not most people.
There is the counter argument that (1) many people are confusing the value of their roles with the value of themselves and (2) as @Ishmael_Z has eloquently pointed out above, with the massive crossover holdings of different companies, this is now effectively a cartel. Indeed it's worse than that because shareholder votes on pay are as I understand it not binding, so if you wish to veto a pay offer the only way to do it is to pass a motion dismissing the officer in question or even the whole board.
The example of CEO departure causing share price to plummet is interesting. However, was it because the CEO was good, or because change = uncertainty and markets hate uncertainty? Or some mixture of both? Did Fred Goodwin or Andy Hornby earn the vast packages they were granted? No. They bankrupted their companies, and went very close to bankrupting the whole country and indeed the whole planet. Clearly while they were paid vast sums for their roles, the money paid was out of all proportion to their actual performance.
As for the second the obvious way to deal with it is to make shareholder votes binding and say one shareholder, one vote. That would I see a rapid change I think.
If Adam Smith wanted to deflect attention from corporate pay, they might point out similar problems exist in the public sector. To take only one particularly dreadful example, is Mr Mark James, CEO of that mighty seat of government Carmarthenshire County Council, where his tenure has been pockmarked by two police investigations, a ruling by the Auditor General for Wales that his pension arrangements and an indemnity to fight a libel action were unlawful, and a vicious campaign against a local blogger who had the temerity to film him addressing the council, really worth £185,365 per annum not including pension?0 -
The Democrats can be a protest party in the mid-terms but in the presidential election they have to offer a viable alternative which reflects the mood of the voters.stodge said:On topic, the politics of this is quite simple.
The Democrats simply need to ensure the GOP is seen to be tied to Trump. It will be very hard for the GOP to disassociate themselves from Trump even if they obstruct some of his ideas in the House and Congress. The chaos works to the Democrats' advantage though with Kelly now as Chief of Staff that advantage will end.
The other aspect is to challenge Trump in 2019-20 on his pledges and promises from 2016. What has he achieved - where is the Wall, where are the jobs, has he brought security and prosperity ? Challenge him on his record and he will have nowhere to hide.
The Labour policy change on leaving the EU can be seen in a similar vein - the 2021-22 campaign will all be about challenging the Conservatives on the post-referendum and A50 pledges and plans.
The next general election is also likely to be in 2020 now
0 -
I feel almost guilty that the one that really shook me was the incident with the puppy.Alistair said:
It is impossible to pick a highlight of his nastiness.Ishmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.
Genuinely think you can use the word "evil" to describe him without being hyperbolic.
While he is really loathsome towards other human beings, what got me was the sheer pointlessness of that one. It suggests that that he's not doing all these things because he believes it will help, or that it will make him popular - it seems it really is because he and his men are cruel bastards who enjoy inflicting needless suffering because they can.0 -
-
Starting with America, yes to a point but if a populist like Trump is seen to have failed, those who backed him many simply not bother and that will be enough for the Democrats to win. I do agree a credible alternative programme will help but a large element of that will be clearing up the mess Trump and the GOP have made and IF the Democrats sweep all three in 2020 it will be on the back of tidying up that perceived mess.HYUFD said:
The Democrats can be a protest party in the mid-terms but in the presidential election they have to offer a viable alternative which reflects the mood of the voters.
The next general election is also likely to be in 2020 now
Now to Britain and you now seem to think the next GE will be 2020. The timetable is we leave the EU, May is let go with much grateful thinks and the new leader, with the help of some tax cuts here and there, goes to the country on the "Global Britain" platform in 2020. It's cynical and if I can see it so can anyone and everyone else.
It's about the only hope the Conservatives have and all they can go on is the A50 Treaty as the domestic record will look uninspiring after a decade in office. Today's performance by May suggests the current Conservative line is still Miliband-lite.
0 -
Indeed. There are perhaps circumstances where he would go out the martyr declaring America didn't deserve him. Say his agenda continues to be snared up, the Russia investigation widens to include his alleged shady business deals and his White House becomes even more dysfunctional it might be more appealing to go out as the martyred hero rather than continuing to be wounded. That said, there's two problems that make this unlikely. Firstly, his pathological relationship with the truth means he could be caught using the Declaration of Independence as a napkin and claim he's done nothing wrong. Second, you've got the old dictator problem - often they know they have to remain in power because the moment they step down they'll be in court or worse. Having made his business reputation in the mob-tied world of New York real estate Trump surely knows that winning the presidency has put a huge target on his back for investigators/hacks/activists and politicians and as a private citizen he'd lose a lot of his protections and his ability to control stuff.Richard_Nabavi said:
I agree, but the political obstacles to impeachment are considerable, and his ego is such that he probably truly believes he's a great president, so I doubt if he will stand down voluntarily.dixiedean said:
I agree of course that bets are about uncertainty. What I was trying to say was that they are also about feeling or instinct. An ability to read events or actions. I just can't read Trump!Richard_Nabavi said:
All bets are about things which are uncertain. That's kinda the idea.dixiedean said:Trump is just too unpredictable to risk cash on. I agree he isn't likely to be impeached, but he could just get bored and jack it all in tomorrow. Equally he could be there for 8 years. Who knows? Not me.
Personally I think that the market has this wrong, and he's much more likely to survive until the end of the current term than the odds imply. However, it's rather a long time to tie up your money for a shortish-odds bet.0 -
Apologies for snipping some of your response. Simple question - is it up to Government to tell private companies how to comport themselves ? Surely it's up to private companies to decide if they want shareholder democracy.ydoethur said:
As for the second the obvious way to deal with it is to make shareholder votes binding and say one shareholder, one vote. That would I see a rapid change I think.
If Adam Smith wanted to deflect attention from corporate pay, they might point out similar problems exist in the public sector. To take only one particularly dreadful example, is Mr Mark James, CEO of that mighty seat of government Carmarthenshire County Council, where his tenure has been pockmarked by two police investigations, a ruling by the Auditor General for Wales that his pension arrangements and an indemnity to fight a libel action were unlawful, and a vicious campaign against a local blogger who had the temerity to film him addressing the council, really worth £185,365 per annum not including pension?
The issue of senior public sector pay is more relevant and you can look at the remuneration package of the CEX of Surrey County Council if you want another example. John O is a member of that Council - would he stand up and tell the rest of the Conservative Group how much David McNulty's successor should be paid ? How would David Hodge react if Theresa May ordered him to reduce the salary package ? What right has Government to interfere in such matters in the public sector ?
0 -
That's a spoof Corbyn accountHYUFD said:0 -
Shareholders hold private sector executives accountable, voters hold public sector executives accountable, if there is enough outrage at council CEXs pay councillors will be elected on a platform of reducing itstodge said:
Apologies for snipping some of your response. Simple question - is it up to Government to tell private companies how to comport themselves ? Surely it's up to private companies to decide if they want shareholder democracy.ydoethur said:
As for the second the obvious way to deal with it is to make shareholder votes binding and say one shareholder, one vote. That would I see a rapid change I think.
If Adam Smith wanted to deflect attention from corporate pay, they might point out similar problems exist in the public sector. To take only one particularly dreadful example, is Mr Mark James, CEO of that mighty seat of government Carmarthenshire County Council, where his tenure has been pockmarked by two police investigations, a ruling by the Auditor General for Wales that his pension arrangements and an indemnity to fight a libel action were unlawful, and a vicious campaign against a local blogger who had the temerity to film him addressing the council, really worth £185,365 per annum not including pension?
The issue of senior public sector pay is more relevant and you can look at the remuneration package of the CEX of Surrey County Council if you want another example. John O is a member of that Council - would he stand up and tell the rest of the Conservative Group how much David McNulty's successor should be paid ? How would David Hodge react if Theresa May ordered him to reduce the salary package ? What right has Government to interfere in such matters in the public sector ?0 -
Yes, no-one (except the hard left) objects to successful business leaders earning good money, but all too often failure is also being rewarded handsomely which is a problem.ydoethur said:
Yes but -stodge said:Thanks for yours and the other comments.
[snip]
It was an interesting argument and equated successful CEOs to Premier League footballers where the very best could command astronomical fees based on the fact they could win trophies which would enhance the value of the club.
Shouldn't capitalism be about encouraging and rewarding success ? It certainly used to be. The mood is not strong for capitalism at the moment - whether it's the "magic money tree" or Government intervention on executive pay, there's a sense capitalism and the economic culture isn't working for many if not most people.
There is the counter argument that (1) many people are confusing the value of their roles with the value of themselves and (2) as @Ishmael_Z has eloquently pointed out above, with the massive crossover holdings of different companies, this is now effectively a cartel. Indeed it's worse than that because shareholder votes on pay are as I understand it not binding, so if you wish to veto a pay offer the only way to do it is to pass a motion dismissing the officer in question or even the whole board.
The example of CEO departure causing share price to plummet is interesting. However, was it because the CEO was good, or because change = uncertainty and markets hate uncertainty? Or some mixture of both? Did Fred Goodwin or Andy Hornby earn the vast packages they were granted? No. They bankrupted their companies, and went very close to bankrupting the whole country and indeed the whole planet. Clearly while they were paid vast sums for their roles, the money paid was out of all proportion to their actual performance.
As for the second the obvious way to deal with it is to make shareholder votes binding and say one shareholder, one vote. That would I see a rapid change I think.
If Adam Smith wanted to deflect attention from corporate pay, they might point out similar problems exist in the public sector. To take only one particularly dreadful example, is Mr Mark James, CEO of that mighty seat of government Carmarthenshire County Council, where his tenure has been pockmarked by two police investigations, a ruling by the Auditor General for Wales that his pension arrangements and an indemnity to fight a libel action were unlawful, and a vicious campaign against a local blogger who had the temerity to film him addressing the council, really worth £185,365 per annum not including pension?
Ditto with the quangocrats and council leaders, who screw up, get fired, paid off (12 months’ notice) then reappear somewhere else in short order to screw up again.0 -
What gave it away?MikeSmithson said:
That's a spoof Corbyn accountHYUFD said: 0 -
Trump's base don't think he has failed, he has been pursuing their agenda on immigration, Obamacare etc as far as they are concerned it is Congress which has let him down. Hence they won't bother to vote for the GOP in the midterms but they will turn out for Trump again in 2020stodge said:
Starting with America, yes to a point but if a populist like Trump is seen to have failed, those who backed him many simply not bother and that will be enough for the Democrats to win. I do agree a credible alternative programme will help but a large element of that will be clearing up the mess Trump and the GOP have made and IF the Democrats sweep all three in 2020 it will be on the back of tidying up that perceived mess.HYUFD said:
The Democrats can be a protest party in the mid-terms but in the presidential election they have to offer a viable alternative which reflects the mood of the voters.
The next general election is also likely to be in 2020 now
Now to Britain and you now seem to think the next GE will be 2020. The timetable is we leave the EU, May is let go with much grateful thinks and the new leader, with the help of some tax cuts here and there, goes to the country on the "Global Britain" platform in 2020. It's cynical and if I can see it so can anyone and everyone else.
It's about the only hope the Conservatives have and all they can go on is the A50 Treaty as the domestic record will look uninspiring after a decade in office. Today's performance by May suggests the current Conservative line is still Miliband-lite.
Why is it cynical? Once we have completed Brexit voters can either vote for that or for whatever Corbyn's position of the day on Brexit is in 2020. Given the financial situation Brown left the country in in 2010 compared to today whatever the result of the next general election there is much the Tories can take credit for0 -
Ye know something's going well when old dinosaur chops tries to associate himself with it.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
https://twitter.com/ClatchardCraig/status/9017513982573608970 -
Well I never would have believed that!!MikeSmithson said:
That's a spoof Corbyn accountHYUFD said:0 -
No, I disagree. Companies exist at all because the government has set a regulatory framework for them to exist in. The problem is that framework has broken down and owners are not currently given the say over how their money is spent. That's wrong, and therefore amending the framework is in order.stodge said:Simple question - is it up to Government to tell private companies how to comport themselves ? Surely it's up to private companies to decide if they want shareholder democracy.
The simplest of the lot - they are employed by us to get value for money for our taxes.stodge said:The issue of senior public sector pay is more relevant and you can look at the remuneration package of the CEX of Surrey County Council if you want another example. John O is a member of that Council - would he stand up and tell the rest of the Conservative Group how much David McNulty's successor should be paid ? How would David Hodge react if Theresa May ordered him to reduce the salary package ? What right has Government to interfere in such matters in the public sector ?
I have no objection to fair remuneration based on merit in public or private sector. I insist on it myself! What bothers me is that a great many crooks, chancers and failures are being paid vast sums that they are not earning and that they effectively award themselves via huge pay rises there is no effectual way of blocking while others suffer the consequences of their failures. That is wrong, and it needs changing.
And I could have mentioned university Vice Chancellors - is the Vice Chancellor of the University of Bolton worth £220,000 a year and other benefits totalling £1 million? Clearly not. But that's what he's taking.0 -
The issue is the supine nature of institutional investors, but there is some sign of progressIshmael_Z said:
I see plc executive pay as a straightforward cartel. If all the airlines privately agree a minimum fare for let's say LHR-JFK then that's me stitched up if I happen to want to fly that route. It is no good claiming that the free market will rectify the situation, because the entry qualifications are quite high - you are not going to find brave little startups undercutting the cartel. Similarly if I want to invest in bigass ftse100 companies, and the ceos have an unspoken agreement about not querying each others' pay, while I would prefer more money as dividends and less as pay, again, I am being stitched up and, again, there is no obvious free market mechanism to alleviate the problem. Therefore "because capitalism" is not a valid argument here.stodge said:Evening all
Perhaps the discussion point of the day, at least according to LBC, was or were May's comments on executive pay. It's interesting to see a Conservative Party Prime Minister being as strongly criticised as May was by that arch-Lefty Sam Bowman from that group of Trots known as the Adam Smith Institute.
Bowman's not unreasonable point was that private companies could pay their CEOs what ever they liked and that was an integral part of capitalism. He was less able to defend the pay rise of the head of British Gas especially with 16% price rises in the pipeline (so to speak) and spluttered something about the wholesale price of gas.
May's remarks seem to channel her inner Ed Miliband as it's exactly the kind of well-meaning but impractical proposal he would put forward. Naming and shaming and registers shout nothing more than impotence and there's a wider question about our economic culture.
"Who will speak for the capitalists ?" I mused. Not, I seems, Theresa May's Conservatives.0 -
Let's be honest - 2020 is a long way off in the US. As far as the Trump "base" is concerned, it only needs a small shift to hand states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania back to the Democrats. For now, there is support bu we are seven months into a forty-eight month Presidency - still very early days.HYUFD said:
Trump's base don't think he has failed, he has been pursuing their agenda on immigration, Obamacare etc as far as they are concerned it is Congress which has let him down. Hence they won't bother to vote for the GOP in the midterms but they will turn out for Trump again in 2020
Why is it cynical? Once we have completed Brexit voters can either vote for that or for whatever Corbyn's position of the day on Brexit is in 2020. Given the financial situation Brown left the country in in 2010 compared to today whatever the result of the next general election there is much the Tories can take credit for
As for here, I hope you'll allocate a small part of that credit to the Coalition as well. Oborne in the Mail on Saturday was ringing alarm bells on banking and no one can be anything other than worried about levels of consumer and personal debt. For all the brave talk about bringing the public finances under control, the odd small surplus swallow doesn't make a summer and big challenges such as the finding of adult social care aren't going to go away.
I can only hope the CoE reminds the PM and the Party Chairman of the folly of unaffordable tax cuts as election bribes.
0 -
Who's the SNP-enabled preferred presenter for such a show?Theuniondivvie said:
Ye know something's going well when old dinosaur chops tries to associate himself with it.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
https://twitter.com/ClatchardCraig/status/901751398257360897
And thanks for letting me know about the show; it might be interesting.0 -
It does but the Democrats are most likely to pick a left liberal identity politics candidate who will lose centrists in those states on current trends.stodge said:
Let's be honest - 2020 is a long way off in the US. As far as the Trump "base" is concerned, it only needs a small shift to hand states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania back to the Democrats. For now, there is support bu we are seven months into a forty-eight month Presidency - still very early days.HYUFD said:
Trump's base don't think he has failed, he has been pursuing their agenda on immigration, Obamacare etc as far as they are concerned it is Congress which has let him down. Hence they won't bother to vote for the GOP in the midterms but they will turn out for Trump again in 2020
Why is it cynical? Once we have completed Brexit voters can either vote for that or for whatever Corbyn's position of the day on Brexit is in 2020. Given the financial situation Brown left the country in in 2010 compared to today whatever the result of the next general election there is much the Tories can take credit for
As for here, I hope you'll allocate a small part of that credit to the Coalition as well. Oborne in the Mail on Saturday was ringing alarm bells on banking and no one can be anything other than worried about levels of consumer and personal debt. For all the brave talk about bringing the public finances under control, the odd small surplus swallow doesn't make a summer and big challenges such as the finding of adult social care aren't going to go away.
I can only hope the CoE reminds the PM and the Party Chairman of the folly of unaffordable tax cuts as election bribes.
The Coalition of course can claim some credit too, May did try and tackle adult social care but in a politically inept way, only a cross-party commission can only ever get a longer term plan implemented on that.
Tax cuts which grow the economy and increase tax revenues are not unaffordable, it depends on their impact
0 -
Trump currently polls at 58℅ vs a hypothetical primary challenger.
That was the level that caused newspapers to write "Carter is fucked" articles back in the 70s0 -
The problem is that shareholder democracy works where you have individuals and small investors in charge and boards which will listen. The Conservatives at one time believed in widespread share ownership and encouraged it to a point through privatisation. Unfortunately, too many individuals saw a quick profit on the opening day and the shares ended up in the hands of banks, hedge funds and the like who only care about the bottom line.ydoethur said:
No, I disagree. Companies exist at all because the government has set a regulatory framework for them to exist in. The problem is that framework has broken down and owners are not currently given the say over how their money is spent. That's wrong, and therefore amending the framework is in order.
0 -
Though of course Carter ultimately beat Ted Kennedy for the nomination and the Democrats have no Reagan in the running for 2020Alistair said:Trump currently polls at 58℅ vs a hypothetical primary challenger.
That was the level that caused newspapers to write "Carter is fucked" articles back in the 70s0 -
Yes that is true. But there are ways that could be tipped back again. Whether May seriously intends to take any or whether she was just blowing off hot air for favourable headlines in the Mail, Express and Mirror remains to be seen. My guess is the latter, frankly. However, the ASI are fools to be trying to defend CEO pay which has clearly got far out of hand.stodge said:
The problem is that shareholder democracy works where you have individuals and small investors in charge and boards which will listen. The Conservatives at one time believed in widespread share ownership and encouraged it to a point through privatisation. Unfortunately, too many individuals saw a quick profit on the opening day and the shares ended up in the hands of banks, hedge funds and the like who only care about the bottom line.ydoethur said:
No, I disagree. Companies exist at all because the government has set a regulatory framework for them to exist in. The problem is that framework has broken down and owners are not currently given the say over how their money is spent. That's wrong, and therefore amending the framework is in order.0 -
For every Dukakis there's a Clinton. I suspect the Democrats will want to win in 2020 so pragmatism will rule and whether it's a Biden or someone else remains to be seen.HYUFD said:
It does but the Democrats are most likely to pick a left liberal identity politics candidate who will lose centrists in those states on current trends.
The Coalition of course can claim some credit too, May did try and tackle adult social care but in a politically inept way, only a cross-party commission can only ever get a longer term plan implemented on that.
Tax cuts which grow the economy and increase tax revenues are not unaffordable, it depends on their impact
I agree on the cross-party commission to tackle adult social care but there are many other non-political experts who need to be involved. I do think it needs to be taken out of the party political battleground and perhaps needs to look at a wider remit of how the elderly are to be valued and treated in our society.
We'll agree to disagree on tax cuts.
0 -
Just saw some of the BBC's "Di" documentary.
Loads of Blair and Ali Campbell.... Feel like getting out the champagne and party poppers and partying like it's 1997
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwWfE4DAyao0 -
Insofar as I know what 'SNP-enabled preferred presenter' means, havenae a clue.JosiasJessop said:
Who's the SNP-enabled preferred presenter for such a show?Theuniondivvie said:
Ye know something's going well when old dinosaur chops tries to associate himself with it.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
https://twitter.com/ClatchardCraig/status/901751398257360897
And thanks for letting me know about the show; it might be interesting.
The ex-leader of a party whose sock puppets have at various times described the new bridge as a vanity project & waste of money wouldn't be my first choice though.0 -
If Arpaio was younger, Trump would nominate him to SCOTUS.Ishmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.0 -
Not another Clinton, surely??stodge said:
For every Dukakis there's a Clinton. I suspect the Democrats will want to win in 2020 so pragmatism will rule and whether it's a Biden or someone else remains to be seen.HYUFD said:
It does but the Democrats are most likely to pick a left liberal identity politics candidate who will lose centrists in those states on current trends.
The Coalition of course can claim some credit too, May did try and tackle adult social care but in a politically inept way, only a cross-party commission can only ever get a longer term plan implemented on that.
Tax cuts which grow the economy and increase tax revenues are not unaffordable, it depends on their impact
I agree on the cross-party commission to tackle adult social care but there are many other non-political experts who need to be involved. I do think it needs to be taken out of the party political battleground and perhaps needs to look at a wider remit of how the elderly are to be valued and treated in our society.
We'll agree to disagree on tax cuts.0 -
-
To be fair to Bowman, he did say that companies that were not performing could not justify excessive remuneration for their leadership and shareholders had a duty to ask what justification did exist. As for successful companies and Burberry was quoted as one, Bowman argued Government has no rights setting limitations on success and if a successful company wished to reward its CEO for that success, they had every right to do so.ydoethur said:
Yes that is true. But there are ways that could be tipped back again. Whether May seriously intends to take any or whether she was just blowing off hot air for favourable headlines in the Mail, Express and Mirror remains to be seen. My guess is the latter, frankly. However, the ASI are fools to be trying to defend CEO pay which has clearly got far out of hand.
I think that's a valid argument.
0 -
Looks like you enjoyed that more than OGH!GIN1138 said:0 -
Typically the press release doesn't tell you what the budget figure was - there were a few different figures. Working it out from the £245 million "underspend" as 18% gives an implied budget of £1.36 billion. The contractors bid £1.1 billion* according to the Wikipedia article. This means the project came in exactly on budget - well done the contractors - and the rest is the kind of innumerate spin you can expect from our government in Scotland.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
* Correction I misread the Wikipedia article. The bid was £830 million. It was a bit over budget.0 -
I saw Keir Starmer described Labour's position as "no ambiguity" today. Yet they still haven't made clear whether they want to stay in the customs union or whether they want to stay in the single market. They have no credibility left.GIN1138 said:0 -
The Democrats lost under a centrist in 2016, albeit a tainted one and now want a liberal left populist in 2020. If they win the House that will just convince them an ideologue can win which then favours Warren.stodge said:
For every Dukakis there's a Clinton. I suspect the Democrats will want to win in 2020 so pragmatism will rule and whether it's a Biden or someone else remains to be seen.HYUFD said:
It does but the Democrats are most likely to pick a left liberal identity politics candidate who will lose centrists in those states on current trends.
The Coalition of course can claim some credit too, May did try and tackle adult social care but in a politically inept way, only a cross-party commission can only ever get a longer term plan implemented on that.
Tax cuts which grow the economy and increase tax revenues are not unaffordable, it depends on their impact
I agree on the cross-party commission to tackle adult social care but there are many other non-political experts who need to be involved. I do think it needs to be taken out of the party political battleground and perhaps needs to look at a wider remit of how the elderly are to be valued and treated in our society.
We'll agree to disagree on tax cuts.
The only possible future president I can see amongst the current crop of Democrats is Congressman Joseph P Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy's grandson but he needs to get elected Senator or Governor first, 2020 is too early for him.
I agree on the wider remit of elderly care, personally I favour using National Insurance to pay for it and giving tax breaks to children who help their elderly parents but the whole issue needs looking at
0 -
I did not know much about the man until I read that Wikipedia page. The piece about not investigating child sex abuse is horrific. There is a certain circle of hell for those in authority that let children get raped.Sean_F said:
If Arpaio was younger, Trump would nominate him to SCOTUS.Ishmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.0 -
I'd thought of him as a joke figure, but that makes him sound rather sinister.CornishJohn said:
I did not know much about the man until I read that Wikipedia page. The piece about not investigating child sex abuse is horrific. There is a certain circle of hell for those in authority that let children get raped.Sean_F said:
If Arpaio was younger, Trump would nominate him to SCOTUS.Ishmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.0 -
Went to see Detroit earlier, hard work but well worth it0
-
You expect the numpty to know anything about ScotlandJosiasJessop said:
A nice theory, aside from the fact ISTR the SNP were against the new parliament building ...Ishmael_Z said:
Only another £255m to save, then and the cost overrun on the Parliament Building will have been offset.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/0 -
You halfwit if you cannot even read of a wikipedia page. What unionist put the crap on there to suit dummies like yourself in their delusions.FF43 said:
Typically the press release doesn't tell you what the budget figure was - there were a few different figures. Working it out from the £245 million "underspend" as 18% gives an implied budget of £1.36 billion. The contractors bid £1.1 billion* according to the Wikipedia article. This means the project came in exactly on budget - well done the contractors - and the rest is the kind of innumerate spin you can expect from our government in Scotland.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
* Correction I misread the Wikipedia article. The bid was £830 million. It was a bit over budget.0 -
Not with Brown it won't be or else it will be a first for that halfwit.JosiasJessop said:
Who's the SNP-enabled preferred presenter for such a show?Theuniondivvie said:
Ye know something's going well when old dinosaur chops tries to associate himself with it.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
https://twitter.com/ClatchardCraig/status/901751398257360897
And thanks for letting me know about the show; it might be interesting.0 -
Surprised the Colonel has not been tempted out of her bunker to get her mug on the TV saying it was a Tory idea.Theuniondivvie said:
Ye know something's going well when old dinosaur chops tries to associate himself with it.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
https://twitter.com/ClatchardCraig/status/9017513982573608970 -
I'm OK with the bridge and the cost. But when our government tries to fool us with their innumerate spin, they should be called out for it.malcolmg said:
You halfwit if you cannot even read of a wikipedia page. What unionist put the crap on there to suit dummies like yourself in their delusions.FF43 said:
Typically the press release doesn't tell you what the budget figure was - there were a few different figures. Working it out from the £245 million "underspend" as 18% gives an implied budget of £1.36 billion. The contractors bid £1.1 billion* according to the Wikipedia article. This means the project came in exactly on budget - well done the contractors - and the rest is the kind of innumerate spin you can expect from our government in Scotland.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
* Correction I misread the Wikipedia article. The bid was £830 million. It was a bit over budget.0 -
Corbyn going down a storm in Scotland.............LOL
https://wingsoverscotland.com/storming-the-nation/
0 -
Rubbish , you are just sick that it is not the usual 250% over budget and use some crap from Wikipedia as your evidence..FF43 said:
I'm OK with the bridge and the cost. But when our government tries to fool us with their innumerate spin, they should be called out for it.malcolmg said:
You halfwit if you cannot even read of a wikipedia page. What unionist put the crap on there to suit dummies like yourself in their delusions.FF43 said:
Typically the press release doesn't tell you what the budget figure was - there were a few different figures. Working it out from the £245 million "underspend" as 18% gives an implied budget of £1.36 billion. The contractors bid £1.1 billion* according to the Wikipedia article. This means the project came in exactly on budget - well done the contractors - and the rest is the kind of innumerate spin you can expect from our government in Scotland.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
* Correction I misread the Wikipedia article. The bid was £830 million. It was a bit over budget.0 -
I am very happy it's not 250% over budget. You are regurgitating our government's nonsense but you are smart enough to know it is nonsense.malcolmg said:
Rubbish , you are just sick that it is not the usual 250% over budget and use some crap from Wikipedia as your evidence..FF43 said:
I'm OK with the bridge and the cost. But when our government tries to fool us with their innumerate spin, they should be called out for it.malcolmg said:
You halfwit if you cannot even read of a wikipedia page. What unionist put the crap on there to suit dummies like yourself in their delusions.FF43 said:
Typically the press release doesn't tell you what the budget figure was - there were a few different figures. Working it out from the £245 million "underspend" as 18% gives an implied budget of £1.36 billion. The contractors bid £1.1 billion* according to the Wikipedia article. This means the project came in exactly on budget - well done the contractors - and the rest is the kind of innumerate spin you can expect from our government in Scotland.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
* Correction I misread the Wikipedia article. The bid was £830 million. It was a bit over budget.0 -
You will observe I have inserted a fairly significant item that you (and possibly Bowman) had omitted.stodge said:
To be fair to Bowman, he did say that companies that were not performing could not justify excessive remuneration for their leadership and shareholders had a duty to ask what justification did exist. As for successful companies and Burberry was quoted as one, Bowman argued Government has no rights setting limitations on success and if the shareholders of a successful company wished to reward its CEO for that success, they had every right to do so.ydoethur said:
Yes that is true. But there are ways that could be tipped back again. Whether May seriously intends to take any or whether she was just blowing off hot air for favourable headlines in the Mail, Express and Mirror remains to be seen. My guess is the latter, frankly. However, the ASI are fools to be trying to defend CEO pay which has clearly got far out of hand.
I think that's a valid argument.
It is quite correct to say that success should be financially rewarded. But it should not be up to the officers of a company to make that judgement, but the owners. At the moment it is not. That is not capitalism, it is cronyism.
I am off to bed, but I hope that gives you something to ponder.
Good night everyone.0 -
At least he's not a turnip.malcolmg said:
You halfwit if you cannot even read of a wikipedia page. What unionist put the crap on there to suit dummies like yourself in their delusions.FF43 said:
Typically the press release doesn't tell you what the budget figure was - there were a few different figures. Working it out from the £245 million "underspend" as 18% gives an implied budget of £1.36 billion. The contractors bid £1.1 billion* according to the Wikipedia article. This means the project came in exactly on budget - well done the contractors - and the rest is the kind of innumerate spin you can expect from our government in Scotland.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
* Correction I misread the Wikipedia article. The bid was £830 million. It was a bit over budget.0 -
-
More than you, malc. See para 2 of this: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2004/may/31/architecture.regenerationmalcolmg said:
You expect the numpty to know anything about ScotlandJosiasJessop said:
A nice theory, aside from the fact ISTR the SNP were against the new parliament building ...Ishmael_Z said:
Only another £255m to save, then and the cost overrun on the Parliament Building will have been offset.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/0 -
Must say I also had my eyes opened. A seriously nasty piece of work.CornishJohn said:
I did not know much about the man until I read that Wikipedia page. The piece about not investigating child sex abuse is horrific. There is a certain circle of hell for those in authority that let children get raped.Sean_F said:
If Arpaio was younger, Trump would nominate him to SCOTUS.Ishmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.0 -
That's a turn-ip for the books!Sean_F said:
At least he's not a turnip.malcolmg said:
You halfwit if you cannot even read of a wikipedia page. What unionist put the crap on there to suit dummies like yourself in their delusions.FF43 said:
Typically the press release doesn't tell you what the budget figure was - there were a few different figures. Working it out from the £245 million "underspend" as 18% gives an implied budget of £1.36 billion. The contractors bid £1.1 billion* according to the Wikipedia article. This means the project came in exactly on budget - well done the contractors - and the rest is the kind of innumerate spin you can expect from our government in Scotland.malcolmg said:Something you never see from Westminster Tories or Labour........
Queensferry Crossing comes in £245 million under budget. That’s more than 18%!
https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/08/27/queensferry-crossing-comes-in-245-million-under-budget/
* Correction I misread the Wikipedia article. The bid was £830 million. It was a bit over budget.0 -
EU fighting like ferrets in a sack over Brexit..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/27/exclusive-eu-could-open-brexit-climbdown-trade-talks-amid-revolt/0 -
And trump pardoned him and thinks he is a great americandixiedean said:
Must say I also had my eyes opened. A seriously nasty piece of work.CornishJohn said:
I did not know much about the man until I read that Wikipedia page. The piece about not investigating child sex abuse is horrific. There is a certain circle of hell for those in authority that let children get raped.Sean_F said:
If Arpaio was younger, Trump would nominate him to SCOTUS.Ishmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.
Tells you what a piece of shit Trump is0 -
Is ir a backlash? Its some Corbyn critics having a go againScott_P said:
Its a veey sensible approach. Much better for the economy than the Tories approach0 -
TGOHF said:
EU fighting like ferrets in a sack over Brexit..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/27/exclusive-eu-could-open-brexit-climbdown-trade-talks-amid-revolt/ 0 -
Under the terms of a proposal set out by France the UK is being encouraged to request a three-year transitional deal if it continues to pay into the EU Budget and accepts EU law.TGOHF said:EU fighting like ferrets in a sack over Brexit..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/27/exclusive-eu-could-open-brexit-climbdown-trade-talks-amid-revolt/
This position puts Paris at odds with hardliners in Brussels and Michel Barnier...
So the soft line is three years with everything as it is today?0 -
A rotten decision, but no more rotten than the pardon for Marc Rich, or the release of Chelsea Manning.619 said:
And trump pardoned him and thinks he is a great americandixiedean said:
Must say I also had my eyes opened. A seriously nasty piece of work.CornishJohn said:
I did not know much about the man until I read that Wikipedia page. The piece about not investigating child sex abuse is horrific. There is a certain circle of hell for those in authority that let children get raped.Sean_F said:
If Arpaio was younger, Trump would nominate him to SCOTUS.Ishmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.
Tells you what a piece of shit Trump is0 -
No fan of the Donald here. I naively thought this was a political pardoning, of the type both sides engage in.619 said:
And trump pardoned him and thinks he is a great americandixiedean said:
Must say I also had my eyes opened. A seriously nasty piece of work.CornishJohn said:
I did not know much about the man until I read that Wikipedia page. The piece about not investigating child sex abuse is horrific. There is a certain circle of hell for those in authority that let children get raped.Sean_F said:
If Arpaio was younger, Trump would nominate him to SCOTUS.Ishmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.
Tells you what a piece of shit Trump is0 -
The line is one that us Leavers have been raising for a while now, that the EU commissioners only care about the money to fund their expansive salaries, lifestyle, huge pensions and wine cellar, whereas the actual countries involved are waking up to what is facing them.williamglenn said:
Under the terms of a proposal set out by France the UK is being encouraged to request a three-year transitional deal if it continues to pay into the EU Budget and accepts EU law.TGOHF said:EU fighting like ferrets in a sack over Brexit..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/27/exclusive-eu-could-open-brexit-climbdown-trade-talks-amid-revolt/
This position puts Paris at odds with hardliners in Brussels and Michel Barnier...
So the soft line is three years with everything as it is today?
So much for Meeks and his 'German car manufacturers' bullshit the other day. Reality is hitting the EU27 like anyone with a brain knew it would.0 -
I agree. With the odds so close on this and 'First term' I'm not sure why anyone is backing the latter.Sandpit said:Trump to leave in 2020 or later is currently 2.18, as opposed to 2.24 that he makes it until the end of his first term. That looks to be a better value bet, as it pays out more than a year earlier and leaves very little time for impeachment proceedings to conclude.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28074021/market?marketId=1.1290971360 -
On top of the Mandelson piece below, Blair will be meeting Juncker this week in Brussels. It's just like old times.0
-
Really?Sean_F said:
A rotten decision, but no more rotten than the pardon for Marc Rich, or the release of Chelsea Manning.619 said:
And trump pardoned him and thinks he is a great americandixiedean said:
Must say I also had my eyes opened. A seriously nasty piece of work.CornishJohn said:
I did not know much about the man until I read that Wikipedia page. The piece about not investigating child sex abuse is horrific. There is a certain circle of hell for those in authority that let children get raped.Sean_F said:
If Arpaio was younger, Trump would nominate him to SCOTUS.Ishmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.
Tells you what a piece of shit Trump is0 -
Yeah come on. Arpaio is a racist piece of shit.dixiedean said:
Really?Sean_F said:
A rotten decision, but no more rotten than the pardon for Marc Rich, or the release of Chelsea Manning.619 said:
And trump pardoned him and thinks he is a great americandixiedean said:
Must say I also had my eyes opened. A seriously nasty piece of work.CornishJohn said:
I did not know much about the man until I read that Wikipedia page. The piece about not investigating child sex abuse is horrific. There is a certain circle of hell for those in authority that let children get raped.Sean_F said:
If Arpaio was younger, Trump would nominate him to SCOTUS.Ishmael_Z said:Worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Arpaio is probably a lot nastier than you think he is, because it is difficult to compress the scale of it into a couple of paragraphs.
Tells you what a piece of shit Trump is0
