politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remembering Mark Senior – poster on PB 2004-2017

RIP Mark Senior - I used to disagree with him a lot, but sad to know he won't be with us any more

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

YellowSubmarine said:

A reminder Uber is fighting on two regulatory fronts. Arguably much more important than the TfL licensing decision is this week's appeal on the employment status of it's drivers. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/24/uber-faces-double-battle-against-ban-and-scrutiny-of-hiring-practices

Three and a half million Londoners depend on Uber? How many people do the Uber-tweeters think live in London? Uber does provide a good service and is particularly favoured by women, at least where I work, but it is easy to be disruptive when you do not follow any inconvenient laws or regulations. Black cabs are a red herring: Uber in London is mainly a great way to book minicabs.

London reconnections has a very complete article (as it always does) about the Uber issues from both sides see https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/

That’s a very good article indeed, well researched and does a brilliant job of explaining what the debate is actually about.

Agreed. A really excellent article. Khan's position seems much more comprehensible now.

Many people have been taken in by Uber’s slick PR campaign on this one, rather like people were taken in initially by Ryanair’s claims that they were cancelling flights so pilots could go on holiday.

In other news, US minicab app company Lyft are looking at their first international expansion - in London. They’re basically Uber but without the evil.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/09/23/uber-arch-rival-lyft-holds-talks-transport-london-plots-global/

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, on planet Batshit Insane:
twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/912029997879218177

I'm waiting for the all-black welsh disabled woman trades unionist shortlist.

Surely there is no way that an all black shortlist is going to be acceptable in Wales?

A dspute that will dragon and on and on....

Your Powys are weak, old man!

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

YellowSubmarine said:

A reminder Uber is fighting on two regulatory fronts. Arguably much more important than the TfL licensing decision is this week's appeal on the employment status of it's drivers. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/24/uber-faces-double-battle-against-ban-and-scrutiny-of-hiring-practices

Three and a half million Londoners depend on Uber? How many people do the Uber-tweeters think live in London? Uber does provide a good service and is particularly favoured by women, at least where I work, but it is easy to be disruptive when you do not follow any inconvenient laws or regulations. Black cabs are a red herring: Uber in London is mainly a great way to book minicabs.

London reconnections has a very complete article (as it always does) about the Uber issues from both sides see https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/

That’s a very good article indeed, well researched and does a brilliant job of explaining what the debate is actually about.

Agreed. A really excellent article. Khan's position seems much more comprehensible now.

But the nub of it is are they employees or self-employed. I doubt (but actually have no idea) whether the thousands of minicab firms' drivers are employees. Perhaps they are. If so, then Uber should fall in line; if not then not.

Plus all I ever hear from Uber drivers is how they like the flexibility, can work when they want, are in charge of their days. I wonder how indicative of the whole number of Uber drivers are the two who brought the case.

Plus if they succeed and Uber is shut down, then I'm sure they will count it as a huge personal victory.

PS - very sorry to hear about Mark Senior; he to me seemed to be one of the grown-ups on the site.

I confess I don't know a great deal about uber to know if they are an especially nasty company, but then Google and amazon are pieces of shit i hear and it doesn't stop me relying on them, so it comes down to if someone can do ubers job bether than them.

DavidL said:

The ,most interesting bits (for me) were the greyball allegations, which I find truly remarkable, and the economics. It seems remarkable that Uber are investing so heavily into so many different markets at the same time. It shows considerable resources.

I do wonder how far there is a link between very low interest rates in most of the Western world, and what seems to me to be crazy valuations of companies that aren't anywhere near profitability - but seem to be able to raise money from investors extremely easily.

Uber lost over $3bn in 2016 on $6.5bn revenue.

DavidL said:

logical_song said:

surbiton said:

AfD in the end received 1% fewer votes [ 12.4% [. On the direct mandate [ FPTP ], they won 3 seats against 5 for the Left. All 3 seats came in the far east of Germany around Dresden. So we now which part of Germany is the most racist,

So, Jamaica coalition 393 out of 709.
All 4 minor parties within 4 percent, but big winners AfD on 94 and FDP on 80, both from nowhere having been below the threshold last time.
Left and Greens edge up also.

The expectation is that this is going to take months to put together. Merkel is much weakened which is not necessarily good news for the UK. In negotiations an essential element is the ability of a party to say yes. AfD are opposed to ever closer Union, amongst other things of course.

The result for Merkel in Germany is worse than that for May here this June. I'm amazed at the inability of mainstream political commentators to notice that not only does she not have anything like a majority (it looks likely to be the CDU/CSU's worst share since 1949), she may not be able to put together a functioning majority* government at all. The blithe talk of 'Merkel being elected for a fourth term' ignores both that and potential repercussions for her leadership personally, either in coalition negotiations or internally within her party.

* i.e. one that has the reliable confidence of the parliament, even if not on all votes.

rkrkrk said:

stodge said:

On then to yesterday's German election which seems not to have caused much disturbance in the morning financial markets so far.

The worst result for the SPD in modern German history and the second worst for the CDU/CSU leaving the duopoly or GroKo as they are called languishing at 53-54%.

With the SPD choosing, not surprisingly, to move into Opposition, the options for a Governing bloc are limited to the Union plus presumably the FDP (and that was a fine result for Germany's Liberals) either as a minority or with the tacit support of the Greens. In theory, the Union/FDP could be voted down by other parties but it's hard to see AfD, die Linke and the SPD all joining together.

Is this Merkel's last election ? You'd be inclined to think so and start thinking about the successor for 2021 and how that person may wish to deal with the UK through the likely transitional period.

She is 63. Have to admit I thought she would be older before I looked it up.
67 next time around - I certainly don't think you can rule her out on age.

Two or three of my German contacts with whom I have spoken on the election have independently thought she has already served for long enough suggesting there has been a hollowing out of talent below and successors are hard to see, but continuation is sub optimal now and not acceptable next time.

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

logical_song said:

surbiton said:

AfD in the end received 1% fewer votes [ 12.4% [. On the direct mandate [ FPTP ], they won 3 seats against 5 for the Left. All 3 seats came in the far east of Germany around Dresden. So we now which part of Germany is the most racist,

So, Jamaica coalition 393 out of 709.
All 4 minor parties within 4 percent, but big winners AfD on 94 and FDP on 80, both from nowhere having been below the threshold last time.
Left and Greens edge up also.

The expectation is that this is going to take months to put together. Merkel is much weakened which is not necessarily good news for the UK. In negotiations an essential element is the ability of a party to say yes. AfD are opposed to ever closer Union, amongst other things of course.

The result for Merkel in Germany is worse than that for May here this June. I'm amazed at the inability of mainstream political commentators to notice that not only does she not have anything like a majority (it looks likely to be the CDU/CSU's worst share since 1949), she may not be able to put together a functioning majority* government at all. The blithe talk of 'Merkel being elected for a fourth term' ignores both that and potential repercussions for her leadership personally, either in coalition negotiations or internally within her party.

* i.e. one that has the reliable confidence of the parliament, even if not on all votes.

I was taken aback that the bbc report commentary went so far as to use the word disaster - the overall tone has not been close to that bad.

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

logical_song said:

surbiton said:

AfD in the end received 1% fewer votes [ 12.4% [. On the direct mandate [ FPTP ], they won 3 seats against 5 for the Left. All 3 seats came in the far east of Germany around Dresden. So we now which part of Germany is the most racist,

So, Jamaica coalition 393 out of 709.
All 4 minor parties within 4 percent, but big winners AfD on 94 and FDP on 80, both from nowhere having been below the threshold last time.
Left and Greens edge up also.

The expectation is that this is going to take months to put together. Merkel is much weakened which is not necessarily good news for the UK. In negotiations an essential element is the ability of a party to say yes. AfD are opposed to ever closer Union, amongst other things of course.

The result for Merkel in Germany is worse than that for May here this June. I'm amazed at the inability of mainstream political commentators to notice that not only does she not have anything like a majority (it looks likely to be the CDU/CSU's worst share since 1949), she may not be able to put together a functioning majority* government at all. The blithe talk of 'Merkel being elected for a fourth term' ignores both that and potential repercussions for her leadership personally, either in coalition negotiations or internally within her party.

* i.e. one that has the reliable confidence of the parliament, even if not on all votes.

2nd election this year? Another blow to May's Brexit nonsense, I mean, cunning plan.

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

logical_song said:

surbiton said:

AfD in the end received 1% fewer votes [ 12.4% [. On the direct mandate [ FPTP ], they won 3 seats against 5 for the Left. All 3 seats came in the far east of Germany around Dresden. So we now which part of Germany is the most racist,

So, Jamaica coalition 393 out of 709.
All 4 minor parties within 4 percent, but big winners AfD on 94 and FDP on 80, both from nowhere having been below the threshold last time.
Left and Greens edge up also.

The expectation is that this is going to take months to put together. Merkel is much weakened which is not necessarily good news for the UK. In negotiations an essential element is the ability of a party to say yes. AfD are opposed to ever closer Union, amongst other things of course.

The result for Merkel in Germany is worse than that for May here this June. I'm amazed at the inability of mainstream political commentators to notice that not only does she not have anything like a majority (it looks likely to be the CDU/CSU's worst share since 1949), she may not be able to put together a functioning majority* government at all. The blithe talk of 'Merkel being elected for a fourth term' ignores both that and potential repercussions for her leadership personally, either in coalition negotiations or internally within her party.

* i.e. one that has the reliable confidence of the parliament, even if not on all votes.

That sounds like it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that we may get a second election, or an unstable minority coalition relying on others for every vote in Parliament.

Very sorry to hear of Marks passing. I wrote the anti A/V thread header against his pro back in the day and tbf he'd pretty much convinced me by the end of it. Rest in peace and I hope wherever you are there are by elections to enjoy.

RIP Mark. And Roger is correct about there once being a photo posted here.

Mark was once a skilled pub sports player - might have been pool or darts - and he and his local team won a competition (I guess must have been around 2006/7?) and provided a link to the newspaper photo. He looked the embodiment of geniality and good humour.

philiph said:

Sandpit said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

logical_song said:

surbiton said:

AfD in the end received 1% fewer votes [ 12.4% [. On the direct mandate [ FPTP ], they won 3 seats against 5 for the Left. All 3 seats came in the far east of Germany around Dresden. So we now which part of Germany is the most racist,

So, Jamaica coalition 393 out of 709.
All 4 minor parties within 4 percent, but big winners AfD on 94 and FDP on 80, both from nowhere having been below the threshold last time.
Left and Greens edge up also.

The expectation is that this is going to take months to put together. Merkel is much weakened which is not necessarily good news for the UK. In negotiations an essential element is the ability of a party to say yes. AfD are opposed to ever closer Union, amongst other things of course.

The result for Merkel in Germany is worse than that for May here this June. I'm amazed at the inability of mainstream political commentators to notice that not only does she not have anything like a majority (it looks likely to be the CDU/CSU's worst share since 1949), she may not be able to put together a functioning majority* government at all. The blithe talk of 'Merkel being elected for a fourth term' ignores both that and potential repercussions for her leadership personally, either in coalition negotiations or internally within her party.

* i.e. one that has the reliable confidence of the parliament, even if not on all votes.

That sounds like it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that we may get a second election, or an unstable minority coalition relying on others for every vote in Parliament.

Out of interest, when was the last time Germany had an election before the full term had run?

To answer my own question after the 2002 to 2005 session.

RIP Mark, your ability to pluck out local information way over and beyond the raw data was astounding and will be missed by all here.

Interesting thread exchange on State Aid.

https://twitter.com/nickmacpherson2/status/911959448343728129

Sandpit said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

logical_song said:

surbiton said:

AfD in the end received 1% fewer votes [ 12.4% [. On the direct mandate [ FPTP ], they won 3 seats against 5 for the Left. All 3 seats came in the far east of Germany around Dresden. So we now which part of Germany is the most racist,

So, Jamaica coalition 393 out of 709.
All 4 minor parties within 4 percent, but big winners AfD on 94 and FDP on 80, both from nowhere having been below the threshold last time.
Left and Greens edge up also.

The expectation is that this is going to take months to put together. Merkel is much weakened which is not necessarily good news for the UK. In negotiations an essential element is the ability of a party to say yes. AfD are opposed to ever closer Union, amongst other things of course.

The result for Merkel in Germany is worse than that for May here this June. I'm amazed at the inability of mainstream political commentators to notice that not only does she not have anything like a majority (it looks likely to be the CDU/CSU's worst share since 1949), she may not be able to put together a functioning majority* government at all. The blithe talk of 'Merkel being elected for a fourth term' ignores both that and potential repercussions for her leadership personally, either in coalition negotiations or internally within her party.

* i.e. one that has the reliable confidence of the parliament, even if not on all votes.

That sounds like it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that we may get a second election, or an unstable minority coalition relying on others for every vote in Parliament.

Both have to be realistic possibilities. Indeed, they're not mutually exclusive: a minority coalition (or the failure to agree a coalition at all, if the CDU decide that a minority deal with FDP or Greens wouldn't be worth it, and a majority Jamaica or SPD deal can't be struck) could well lead to another election within a year.

My condolences to his family and friends. As a long time lurker and occasional poster, I always appreciated his contributions. There is no greater thing you can have done with a life than to be missed as you leave it.

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

YellowSubmarine said:

A reminder Uber is fighting on two regulatory fronts. Arguably much more important than the TfL licensing decision is this week's appeal on the employment status of it's drivers. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/24/uber-faces-double-battle-against-ban-and-scrutiny-of-hiring-practices

Three and a half million Londoners depend on Uber? How many people do the Uber-tweeters think live in London? Uber does provide a good service and is particularly favoured by women, at least where I work, but it is easy to be disruptive when you do not follow any inconvenient laws or regulations. Black cabs are a red herring: Uber in London is mainly a great way to book minicabs.

London reconnections has a very complete article (as it always does) about the Uber issues from both sides see https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/

That’s a very good article indeed, well researched and does a brilliant job of explaining what the debate is actually about.

Agreed. A really excellent article. Khan's position seems much more comprehensible now.

Many people have been taken in by Uber’s slick PR campaign on this one, rather like people were taken in initially by Ryanair’s claims that they were cancelling flights so pilots could go on holiday.

In other news, US minicab app company Lyft are looking at their first international expansion - in London. They’re basically Uber but without the evil.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/09/23/uber-arch-rival-lyft-holds-talks-transport-london-plots-global/

It's perfectly possible to hold the position that, whilst Uber is a very bad company, TfL's action is currently unjustified and based more on maintaining the black cab's threatened position.

In fact, expect similar behaviour to come on other companies that dare to challenge black cabs, including Lyft. It's just that Uber's a much easier target due to their policies.

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

I see the Labour Party won't even be debating Brexit.

Why would they want to debate Brexit? They are doing a pretty good job of being all things to all men on the subject at the moment. Why on Earth should the Opposition commit to a policy on the biggest issue of the day, and indeed of this Parliament? < / facetious >

Seems Momentum organized to get their guys to vote it off the list of debates. I guess because a division over Brexit is actually seen by them as an attack on the high priest guru himself.

eek said:

Sandpit said:

One for @Morris_Dancer:
Aston Martin to be Red Bull title sponsor from next year
https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-aston/aston-martin-returns-to-formula-one/36799

That's missing a lot of background which Joe Saward's blog can fill you in on. Basically Red Bull are looking at leaving F1 over the next few years...

Joe's a little slow in reporting this morning, but yes I'm aware of the background. RB have spent a couple of billion on their two team F1 effort over the past decade, and after a few years of winning are now discovering it's a real money pit and the marketing dollars are best utilised somewhere else. They want to get good money back on their investments though, will probably try and sell STR to Honda if possible, following their match up for next season.

Rumours are that McLaren, AM and Cosworth will jointly build a new engine from 2021 season, depending on the final regulations being announced soon.

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

YellowSubmarine said:

A reminder Uber is fighting on two regulatory fronts. Arguably much more important than the TfL licensing decision is this week's appeal on the employment status of it's drivers. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/24/uber-faces-double-battle-against-ban-and-scrutiny-of-hiring-practices

Three and a half million Londoners depend on Uber? How many people do the Uber-tweeters think live in London? Uber does provide a good service and is particularly favoured by women, at least where I work, but it is easy to be disruptive when you do not follow any inconvenient laws or regulations. Black cabs are a red herring: Uber in London is mainly a great way to book minicabs.

London reconnections has a very complete article (as it always does) about the Uber issues from both sides see https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/

That’s a very good article indeed, well researched and does a brilliant job of explaining what the debate is actually about.

Agreed. A really excellent article. Khan's position seems much more comprehensible now.

Many people have been taken in by Uber’s slick PR campaign on this one, rather like people were taken in initially by Ryanair’s claims that they were cancelling flights so pilots could go on holiday.

In other news, US minicab app company Lyft are looking at their first international expansion - in London. They’re basically Uber but without the evil.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/09/23/uber-arch-rival-lyft-holds-talks-transport-london-plots-global/

It's perfectly possible to hold the position that, whilst Uber is a very bad company, TfL's action is currently unjustified and based more on maintaining the black cab's threatened position.

In fact, expect similar behaviour to come on other companies that dare to challenge black cabs, including Lyft. It's just that Uber's a much easier target due to their policies.

Yes, it's a complicated one. Uber are well known as being evil, but it's difficult to separate a genuine problem with them against Khan's wanting to roll over to the Black Cab Union.

Personally I don't see the difference between Lyft and an existing large minicab firm such as Addison Lee - who also have an app for booking cars.

What everyone agrees on (except for SeanT), is that minicab firms should make sure their drivers are vetted, their cars have the right insurance and that they co-operate with regulators and police where required. TfL are currently saying that Uber don't meet these requirements.

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

logical_song said:

surbiton said:

AfD in the end received 1% fewer votes [ 12.4% [. On the direct mandate [ FPTP ], they won 3 seats against 5 for the Left. All 3 seats came in the far east of Germany around Dresden. So we now which part of Germany is the most racist,

So, Jamaica coalition 393 out of 709.
All 4 minor parties within 4 percent, but big winners AfD on 94 and FDP on 80, both from nowhere having been below the threshold last time.
Left and Greens edge up also.

The expectation is that this is going to take months to put together. Merkel is much weakened which is not necessarily good news for the UK. In negotiations an essential element is the ability of a party to say yes. AfD are opposed to ever closer Union, amongst other things of course.

The result for Merkel in Germany is worse than that for May here this June. I'm amazed at the inability of mainstream political commentators to notice that not only does she not have anything like a majority (it looks likely to be the CDU/CSU's worst share since 1949), she may not be able to put together a functioning majority* government at all. The blithe talk of 'Merkel being elected for a fourth term' ignores both that and potential repercussions for her leadership personally, either in coalition negotiations or internally within her party.

* i.e. one that has the reliable confidence of the parliament, even if not on all votes.

Fortunately my modest bet was simply on most seats. But it is hard to see how a government containing both the FDP and the Greens makes any decisions at all.

Which I think the FDP have foreseen which is why they've been extremely cool towards that option. For one thing, a failed CDU/CSU-FDP-Green coalition could easily see them back out of the Bundestag at the next election.

@Sandpit

What everyone agrees on (except for SeanT), is that minicab firms should make sure their drivers are vetted, their cars have the right insurance and that they co-operate with regulators and police where required. TfL are currently saying that Uber don't meet these requirements.

I'm not sure that is what TfL are saying. They are saying there is a problem with:

Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences.
Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.

Nothing to do with insurance. As for Greyball - it is, well, a grey area. It tries to identify particular users and bans them, perhaps an off-duty police officer. That is not quite not cooperating with the regulatory or law enforcement authorities.

Did John McD slip in the possibility of nationalising major construction companies, maybe even house builders into R4 interview?

"My own priorities are rail, water, energy, construction in that way, and Royal Mail, that would follow."

Slip of the tongue?

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

3/4 of Labour voters want 2nd referendum. Meanwhile, Corbyn wants out of Single Market as he thinks it will stop him nationalising water companies without paying.

There was a delightful (and simultaneously terrifying) quote from McDonnell (I think) this morning on R4, which was that in respect of compensation for shareholders, "parliament will decide what the market value of the shares is".

So, it begins.

Sunday Times economics guys saying protocols under Article 1 of European Human Rights might come into play on property rights.

Although if that is true then Corbyn's next act will be to say its time we pulled out of that, as it might stop him.

Has anyone told these two clowns that pensions companies hold large stakes in these kinds of companies? The public would be voting to rob themselves.

RIP Mark.

I observe that if you get actively involved in politics at council level you will go to many funerals, as many councillors take up the role after retirement. It has always put me off standing.

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

3/4 of Labour voters want 2nd referendum. Meanwhile, Corbyn wants out of Single Market as he thinks it will stop him nationalising water companies without paying.

There was a delightful (and simultaneously terrifying) quote from McDonnell (I think) this morning on R4, which was that in respect of compensation for shareholders, "parliament will decide what the market value of the shares is".

So, it begins.

Sunday Times economics guys saying protocols under Article 1 of European Human Rights might come into play on property rights.

Although if that is true then Corbyn's next act will be to say its time we pulled out of that, as it might stop him.

Has anyone told these two clowns that pensions companies hold large stakes in these kinds of companies? The public would be voting to rob themselves.

Is that not called running a deficit?

Philip_Thompson said:

I think you can rule her out on performance. The SDP should surely recover next time a bit due to being in opposition (though the opposite can't be ruled out) while the CDU should continue to drop further and 33% is not a very high score to drop from.

I don't share your confidence in what will happen. I think it's very possible the CDU recover from this relative lowpoint. I'd be wary of underestimating her.

I think it's very impressive that she has won a 4th term despite the challenging situation in Europe, Global Financial Crisis and her very courageous decision on refugees.

I agree though that after 12-16 years in power she should be thinking hard about succession.

rkrkrk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think you can rule her out on performance. The SDP should surely recover next time a bit due to being in opposition (though the opposite can't be ruled out) while the CDU should continue to drop further and 33% is not a very high score to drop from.

I don't share your confidence in what will happen. I think it's very possible the CDU recover from this relative lowpoint. I'd be wary of underestimating her.

I think it's very impressive that she has won a 4th term despite the challenging situation in Europe, Global Financial Crisis and her very courageous decision on refugees.

I agree though that after 12-16 years in power she should be thinking hard about succession.

The CDU could recover with fresh blood but there's very little historical precedent anywhere that I can think of that indicates after 16 years an individual leader can recover.

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

3/4 of Labour voters want 2nd referendum. Meanwhile, Corbyn wants out of Single Market as he thinks it will stop him nationalising water companies without paying.

There was a delightful (and simultaneously terrifying) quote from McDonnell (I think) this morning on R4, which was that in respect of compensation for shareholders, "parliament will decide what the market value of the shares is".

So, it begins.

Sunday Times economics guys saying protocols under Article 1 of European Human Rights might come into play on property rights.

Although if that is true then Corbyn's next act will be to say its time we pulled out of that, as it might stop him.

Has anyone told these two clowns that pensions companies hold large stakes in these kinds of companies? The public would be voting to rob themselves.

Do these two care about pension companies? Or only those on state pensions?

What are these pension companies, of which you speak? Surely pensions are paid by the State because we look after our people, and everyone else are all just evil bankers.

This week is going to be very funny, but hopefully will get some serious points across as to what people like McDonnell want to do.

Philip_Thompson said:

rkrkrk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think you can rule her out on performance. The SDP should surely recover next time a bit due to being in opposition (though the opposite can't be ruled out) while the CDU should continue to drop further and 33% is not a very high score to drop from.

I don't share your confidence in what will happen. I think it's very possible the CDU recover from this relative lowpoint. I'd be wary of underestimating her.

I think it's very impressive that she has won a 4th term despite the challenging situation in Europe, Global Financial Crisis and her very courageous decision on refugees.

I agree though that after 12-16 years in power she should be thinking hard about succession.

The CDU could recover with fresh blood but there's very little historical precedent anywhere that I can think of that indicates after 16 years an individual leader can recover.

Bismarck? First Minister 1862-1873 and then, after a brief period out of power 1873-1890. About the closest I can think of but quite apposite.

Philip_Thompson said:

rkrkrk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think you can rule her out on performance. The SDP should surely recover next time a bit due to being in opposition (though the opposite can't be ruled out) while the CDU should continue to drop further and 33% is not a very high score to drop from.

I don't share your confidence in what will happen. I think it's very possible the CDU recover from this relative lowpoint. I'd be wary of underestimating her.

I think it's very impressive that she has won a 4th term despite the challenging situation in Europe, Global Financial Crisis and her very courageous decision on refugees.

I agree though that after 12-16 years in power she should be thinking hard about succession.

The CDU could recover with fresh blood but there's very little historical precedent anywhere that I can think of that indicates after 16 years an individual leader can recover.

For a free and democratic state lasting that long woukd be very impressive, and ensuring a good successor a fine end project.

Off topic.

is it just me or are the conferences getting much less coverage than they used to, both on the telly, proper news and social media. The LD conference had all the visibility of a witness protection programme.

I ask because I am really busy and might be missing it. I am also watching the Labour conference from behind the sofa.

Philip_Thompson said:

rkrkrk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think you can rule her out on performance. The SDP should surely recover next time a bit due to being in opposition (though the opposite can't be ruled out) while the CDU should continue to drop further and 33% is not a very high score to drop from.

I don't share your confidence in what will happen. I think it's very possible the CDU recover from this relative lowpoint. I'd be wary of underestimating her.

I think it's very impressive that she has won a 4th term despite the challenging situation in Europe, Global Financial Crisis and her very courageous decision on refugees.

I agree though that after 12-16 years in power she should be thinking hard about succession.

The CDU could recover with fresh blood but there's very little historical precedent anywhere that I can think of that indicates after 16 years an individual leader can recover.

How many democratically elected leaders have lasted 16 years anyway?
I'm not sure historical precedent is a good guide to something so rare.

Helmut Kohl lost after 16 years as Chancellor, while William Mackenzie King lasted 21 (!) years in office.

Jonathan said:

Off topic.

is it just me or are the conferences getting much less coverage than they used to, both on the telly, proper news and social media. The LD conference had all the visibility of a witness protection programme.

I ask because I am really busy and might be missing it. I am also watching the Labour conference from behind the sofa.

The lds have struggled for airtime anyway, but it feels like less coverage - I keep forgetting it's conference season, even acknowledging I've been taking a bit of a political break.

tlg86 said:

williamglenn said:

So it looks like the AfD are going to split before they even enter the Bundestag, after Frauke Petry walked out and said she'll sit as an independent.

Is there not a rule against that sort of thing? Did she win a constituency seat or a list seat?

She won a direct mandate in Saxony.

FWIW Starmer is a almost single handedly keeping me in Labour. The man is sound.

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

@Sandpit

What everyone agrees on (except for SeanT), is that minicab firms should make sure their drivers are vetted, their cars have the right insurance and that they co-operate with regulators and police where required. TfL are currently saying that Uber don't meet these requirements.

I'm not sure that is what TfL are saying. They are saying there is a problem with:

Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences.
Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.

Nothing to do with insurance. As for Greyball - it is, well, a grey area. It tries to identify particular users and bans them, perhaps an off-duty police officer. That is not quite not cooperating with the regulatory or law enforcement authorities.

The not co-operating is things like:
Not reporting to police allegations of sexual assault by drivers
Not reporting to police incidents of customers clearly being involved in crime - as an example two passengers who were covered in the red ink dispersed by cash-in-transit containers.
Blacklisting TfL officials from their service, to avoid mandatory inspections (Greyball)
Refusing to assist people reporting lost property

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4911364/London-safer-without-Uber-writes-Katie-Hopkins.html

Look through your list. It sounds bad on first glance, but:

1) Not reporting to police allegations of sexual assault by drivers - so why isn't the assaultee reporting those allegations to the police? Rider rings up uber: "your driver assaulted me sexually". What should the company do?
2) Not reporting to police allegations of customers clearly involved in crime - What is the statutory requirement? Plus "Clearly"? Red ink at night two guys get into the car. How obvious would that be? What else is "clear"?
3) Blacklisting TfL officials is a bad one, maybe, but if the inspection is mandatory then it is mandatory and TfL should be able to work out a way of one of its employees managing to use Uber. 3.5m other Londoners do.
4) Refusing to assist people reporting lost property - I would rather leave something in the back of an Uber than the back of a black cab. For incredibly obvious reasons. Plus does the LTCA "assist" people in reporting lost property?

Ridiculous.

Jonathan said:

FWIW Starmer is a almost single handedly keeping me in Labour. The man is sound.

Was thinking that this morning - bolted on next Lab leader in a sensible world.

Sadly, we do not live in....

Sandpit said:

Labour Conference sounds fun:
https://order-order.com/2017/09/25/mcdonnell-parliament-determine-nationalisation-share-prices/
Investors in utility companies would not be fully compensated at market value for their shares under Labour’s nationalisation plans, John McDonnell has admitted. Speaking on Radio 4 this morning the Shadow Chancellor instead said share prices would be determined by Parliament according to how MPs perceived the past behaviour of firms

If you wanted to terminally damage business in the UK you could hardly do anything worse. It's quite bonkers.

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

@Sandpit

I'm not sure that is what TfL are saying. They are saying there is a problem with:

Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences.
Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.

Nothing to do with insurance. As for Greyball - it is, well, a grey area. It tries to identify particular users and bans them, perhaps an off-duty police officer. That is not quite not cooperating with the regulatory or law enforcement authorities.

The not co-operating is things like:
Not reporting to police allegations of sexual assault by drivers
Not reporting to police incidents of customers clearly being involved in crime - as an example two passengers who were covered in the red ink dispersed by cash-in-transit containers.
Blacklisting TfL officials from their service, to avoid mandatory inspections (Greyball)
Refusing to assist people reporting lost property

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4911364/London-safer-without-Uber-writes-Katie-Hopkins.html

Look through your list. It sounds bad on first glance, but:

1) Not reporting to police allegations of sexual assault by drivers - so why isn't the assaultee reporting those allegations to the police? Rider rings up uber: "your driver assaulted me sexually". What should the company do?
2) Not reporting to police allegations of customers clearly involved in crime - What is the statutory requirement? Plus "Clearly"? Red ink at night two guys get into the car. How obvious would that be? What else is "clear"?
3) Blacklisting TfL officials is a bad one, maybe, but if the inspection is mandatory then it is mandatory and TfL should be able to work out a way of one of its employees managing to use Uber. 3.5m other Londoners do.
4) Refusing to assist people reporting lost property - I would rather leave something in the back of an Uber than the back of a black cab. For incredibly obvious reasons. Plus does the LTCA "assist" people in reporting lost property?

Ridiculous.

These things are mandatory for minicab firms though, every other minicab operator complys in order to retain its operating licence fromTfL. This company is ignoring the rules and hoping that a huge PR campaign and a bunch of expensive lawyers will make TfL change their minds.

I’m as free market as any Conservative, but there needs to be a level playing field. Regulations around minicabs are there for damn good reasons.

logical_song said:

williamglenn said:

So it looks like the AfD are going to split before they even enter the Bundestag, after Frauke Petry walked out and said she'll sit as an independent.

... and she was their leader!

I can understand a leader resigning when she's led her party to a bad result, but not when she's led them to a good one.

Jonathan said:

Off topic.

is it just me or are the conferences getting much less coverage than they used to, both on the telly, proper news and social media. The LD conference had all the visibility of a witness protection programme.

I ask because I am really busy and might be missing it. I am also watching the Labour conference from behind the sofa.

Yes, they're getting less coverage (or less high-profile coverage; what was once on BBC2 is now on BBC Parliament).

The Lib Dems' coverage reduction was also compounded by their reduced status. Two elections at 7-8% and with no more than a dozen MPs means they're really not a major party these days.

Lock Him Up
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/24/jared-kushner-private-email-white-house-243071

Uber boss apologises.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41384499

The Labour Conference (Marxist party of UK) has become a hard left mantra which many thought was dead and buried.

Where are all these labour moderates who are idly standing by and watching their party taken over by the hard left and the unions. Is is time that made a stand and resigned on block to set up a centre left party of their own

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

@Sandpit .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4911364/London-safer-without-Uber-writes-Katie-Hopkins.html

Look through your list. It sounds bad on first glance, but:

1) Not reporting to polFor incredibly obvious reasons. Plus does the LTCA "assist" people in reporting lost property?

Ridiculous.

These things are mandatory for minicab firms though, every other minicab operator complys in order to retain its operating licence fromTfL. This company is ignoring the rules and hoping that a huge PR campaign and a bunch of expensive lawyers will make TfL change their minds.

I’m as free market as any Conservative, but there needs to be a level playing field. Regulations around minicabs are there for damn good reasons.

If they are mandatory for mincab firms (no idea if this is the case) then fine, make them comply, don't ban them overnight.

Plus the common charges against Uber are failing to check drivers and lack of insurance/licensing which doesn't make the list at all and hence is a red herring jumped on by people, yourself included, to discriminate against the company.

Their five year minicab licence expired at the end of May. Instead of renewing it for another five years, TfL renewed it for only four months, highlighting the issues they raised and giving the company those four months (until 30th Sept) to comply. Now been decided that they haven’t (See original article posted early in this thread), and from reports today they are only now engaging with TfL as to what is required of them.

If the details of the BBC report on it are true:

"One of the points raised by TfL was Uber's "approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained" for its drivers.
That part of the process was not even handled by Uber, said Mr Jones. Instead, the drivers organised their own DBS check and took that paperwork to TfL.
TfL then reviews that application before giving the driver a licence allowing them to drive for Uber.
TfL would not elaborate further on its issue with the way in which Uber organises DBS checks, because that would be likely to come up when Uber appealed against the decision."

Then I think we have a right to be sceptical.

TOPPING said:

If they are mandatory for mincab firms (no idea if this is the case) then fine, make them comply, don't ban them overnight.

They aren't being banned overnight.
Even if they lose their appeal they will continue operating for months. The BBC reckons Uber's license in (say) Brighton would enable them to continue to function even after that...

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41363923

Authorities right to stand up to Uber and apply some pressure on them to follow the rules.
They are also encouraging competitors to enter the marketplace which will be of longer-term benefit to consumers.

glw said:

Sandpit said:

Labour Conference sounds fun:
https://order-order.com/2017/09/25/mcdonnell-parliament-determine-nationalisation-share-prices/
Investors in utility companies would not be fully compensated at market value for their shares under Labour’s nationalisation plans, John McDonnell has admitted. Speaking on Radio 4 this morning the Shadow Chancellor instead said share prices would be determined by Parliament according to how MPs perceived the past behaviour of firms

If you wanted to terminally damage business in the UK you could hardly do anything worse. It's quite bonkers.

McDonnell wasn't putting forward some new idea, parliament has debated and decided the terms of compensation in previous nationalisations in exactly the same way.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3309606 - 1949 American article on the problem of compensation with reference to Labour's nationalisations, goes on about the particular conditions of nationalisation that make compensation by market price inappropriate etc. Quite interesting. I'm sure there's more up to date stuff on this.

rkrkrk said:

TOPPING said:

If they are mandatory for mincab firms (no idea if this is the case) then fine, make them comply, don't ban them overnight.

They aren't being banned overnight.
Even if they lose their appeal they will continue operating for months. The BBC reckons Uber's license in (say) Brighton would enable them to continue to function even after that...

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41363923

Authorities right to stand up to Uber and apply some pressure on them to follow the rules.
They are also encouraging competitors to enter the marketplace which will be of longer-term benefit to consumers.

Which is almost worse. If no one is expecting to be banned "properly", because, as per the BBC report on the DBS, it is all bullshit, then it shows the action up for the gesture politics that it is.