politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In betting terms the Moran-Davey battle in the LD race looks c

williamglenn said:

The initial votes counted in Russia show 70% support for the new constitution.

eek said:

RobD said:

.

CarlottaVance said:

Knife edge?

https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1278317186306760705?s=20

More to do with the 11 different timezones the country spans, I think.

Any polling stations closed yet?

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

Pulpstar said:

Done some rough and ready fag packet maths, reckon I'm at about 24 pence per mile all amortised for my current car.
I can't see how a cab company can ever compete with that.

Though I doubt they'll need to. I suppose with the cost of parking in cities it'll be more for your own car to run there...

We don't all live in cities. Parking is free at most places.

LadyG said:

Pulpstar said:

Pulpstar said:

Done some rough and ready fag packet maths, reckon I'm at about 24 pence per mile all amortised for my current car.
I can't see how a cab company can ever compete with that.

Though I doubt they'll need to. I suppose with the cost of parking in cities it'll be more for your own car to run there...

The absence of hassles around parking is a part of Uber's appeal.

Basically, in London, Uber is like having a personal chauffeur in his own car always waiting two minutes around the corner, ready to pick you up and drop you off wherever you like (or do the same for friends) no cash or cards needed, no annoying rants about politics

The increase in utility over traditional minicabs and black cabs is vast

Therefore, some form of this model is the future. But it might not be Uber doing it

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

Big scandal brewing here, I think.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1278285323592708096

Just more incompetence from PHE. Same old.

What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?

Maybe I am missing something.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1278339992423563264?s=20

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alistair said:

Trump won Oklahoma by a mere 30 points.

Yesterday Oklahoma voted for Medicaid Expansion (a key component of Obamacare)
https://results.okelections.us/OKER/?elecDate=20200630

Very narrow victory, but none-the-less impressive in Deep Red country. Rural counties rejected OK State Question 608, but it passed due to strong support in Oklahoma City, Tulsa and college towns.

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

Big scandal brewing here, I think.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1278285323592708096

Just more incompetence from PHE. Same old.

What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?

Maybe I am missing something.

I imagine it is a sign of success from track and trace, that we are tracking, tracing and isolating people before they end up in hospital.

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1278339992423563264?s=20

I wonder what the common theme is?

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1278339992423563264?s=20

I wonder what the common theme is?

Are you including Barnsley in that theme ?

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

Big scandal brewing here, I think.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1278285323592708096

Just more incompetence from PHE. Same old.

What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?

Maybe I am missing something.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

On Uber (and a lot of tech businesses), South Park summed it up years ago with the "underpants gnomes" and their simple three phase plan:

Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit

There has long been the view that you create the scale, get the customer base, and only THEN think about making it profitable.

That isn't totally wrong - there are a lot of now very profitable businesses where the route from scale to profitability was never very clear, but where they found a way.

However, the regulatory challenges are very large for Uber compared with, say, Just Eat, which is ultimately getting a cut from existing (regulated) restaurants and takeaways for pushing business their way. The Uber drivers aren't part of an existing regulated business which inevitably gives Uber employment law and safety obligations... whereas if I order from the local Indian restaurant via Just Eat, it's not Just Eat I do (or should) blame if I get food poisoning, and nor is it Just Eat hiring and firing the chef.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

rawliberal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by

But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?

We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.

I am undecided as to whether the BBC is a good thing. In my opinion you have to split it up into its component parts. You can't just say "what about Netflix.."

So you could have the following subscription services:

1. News (regional subsets thereof)
2. Sport (regional subsets thereof)
3. Weather (regional subsets thereof)
4. Comedy
5. Drama
6. Documentaries
7. Natural History
8. Children's programmes
9. Radio (subsets thereof)
10. Politics
11. Films
12. etc

If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.

Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.

The BBC could lose news, sport, weather and politics and no one would care that much.

That's literally all that differentiates it TV-wise from Netflix though.

Ultimately if the BBC is great value for money people will be prepared to pay for it from free choice. The only reason people are so horrified about the idea of it being a free choice is they're aware that many people won't find it good value for money.

Um, Netflix buys in made programmes and has only recently begun to produce "Netflix Original Series" and films...

MaxPB said:

StuartDickson said:

Martin Baxter’s (Electoral Calculus) latest UK GE prediction:

Prediction: Con 334, Lab 229, SNP 58, Lib Dem 6
Conservative majority of 18 seats

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

That's pretty poor for Labour after months of Boris and Dom completely fucking up in the virus and everything else.

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

LadyG said:

From the BBC Wokesite:

BAME people are going off the label "BAME". Some find it cold and patronising (and I can see their point)

In about six months "BAME" will be deemed as racist as "coloured", and it will be a sackable offence to use the term

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53194376

Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...

Gentiles? That's BILLIONS of people. As for BAME, if we need a word in certain circumstances to describe non whites (which I think we do) and BAME were to fall out of favour it would have to be replaced with an alternative. So I suppose we will stick with it unless or until that alternative comes along.

How about non whites?

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

rawliberal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Amazon almost always made a profit on an operational level, it just reinvested it all to allow it to continually expand.

Uber and most of the other gig companies are subsidising almost every sale in the hope that when they reach critical mass they can increase their prices. I've never seen how that plan works.

Amazon have NEVER made a profit in retailing outside the US. The reason Amazon Europe lose a billion a year has got nothing to do with investment or tax dodging.

Like most multinational retailers, once they leave their home country, they screw up. They're no better than Walmart: just smaller. They're bigger than Tesco or M&S: but all of them have one thing in common.

Off their home territory they're crap. Amazon differs from Walmart, Tesco and M&S only in having shareholders who drink the kool-aid the bald coot and the broker community pour out.

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1278339992423563264?s=20

I wonder what the common theme is?

FF43 said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

Big scandal brewing here, I think.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1278285323592708096

Just more incompetence from PHE. Same old.

What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?

Maybe I am missing something.

I linked this article on PB two months ago. You would think they would have sorted it out by now (not sure who the "they" are). Note the deflection from DHSC in response below.

NB I don't think the Leicester scandal is just on missing test data.

https://twitter.com/HSJEditor/status/1260469435183357954

What scandal? They were given access to the postcode-level data last week.

If you think this is perfectly acceptable, including the dishonest response from DHSC, there's no point replying. I engage with people who have higher standards.

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:

eristdoof said:

DavidL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DavidL said:

What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we
Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.

I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.

That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of. Starmer is much less of a "must be stopped" candidate than Corbyn was.

Given that many of the contributors here were saying last autumn that "Corbyn must be stopped" I would have thought this was 'bleedin' obvious.

But I take @Nigel_Foremain's point that wibbly, dribbly Tories like him may be more inclined to vote Lib Dem next time because the alternative government is less appalling than it was in 2019. It is a good answer to my point that the complete unelectability of Labour in 2019 was an opportunity missed for the Lib Dems.

I think the LDs themselves saw it how you did. Corbyn meant a golden opportunity to score big in a GE at Labour's expense, perhaps even replace them as the main non-Tory party in England. This is why they would not put Corbyn in as a caretaker PM to deliver Ref2, why they went with their Revoke policy (for clear blue water from Labour and unequivocal Remain badging), and why they ultimately went for an election they knew was likely to lead to a majority Tory government. They were shooting for the stars (beat Labour) and they prioritized this above the cause they professed to care about above all others, stopping Brexit. I do not complain about this - all parties prioritize their own interest over the national interest (or argue they are by definition the same) - but this is definitely what I think happened with the LDs. Backfired badly of course. For them. Indeed imo for almost everybody.

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

@Stocky

Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??

Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)

By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.

My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."

How I chuckled.

kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.

- thank you very much.

My pleasure.

tlg86 said:

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1278339992423563264?s=20

I wonder what the common theme is?

Are you including Barnsley in that theme ?

Exception to the rule.

In all seriousness, I wonder what specifically is the issue? Is it workplaces, large household sizes, or something else?

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

@Stocky

Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??

Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)

By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.

My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."

How I chuckled.

kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.

- thank you very much.

My pleasure.

And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?

rcs1000 said:

Flanner said:

Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019:
- "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion
- Operations & support 2.3 bn
- Sales & marketing 4.6 bn
- R&D 4.8 bn
- Admin 3.2 bn

IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.

They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.

Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%

Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...

Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".

Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.

The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.

Pro_Rata said:

tlg86 said:

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1278339992423563264?s=20

I wonder what the common theme is?

Are you including Barnsley in that theme ?

Exception to the rule.

In all seriousness, I wonder what specifically is the issue? Is it workplaces, large household sizes, or something else?

The locations to me run approximately NW to SE the length of the country and represent, as much as anything else, a border between higher incidence west of the line, and lower incidence east of the line - the wavefront of high infection if you like. This gets squeezed a little at the north end of the line, where in some places higher infection rates have approached from either side and squeezed in towards the Pennines last.

I think if the counties were being reported by lower tier authorities this might provide even a few more data points, e.g. a jump from Southend over into Kent. As it stands you just see the unitaries, and though Asian populations are a common theme why would they be particularly represented in a late June wave? Eid is long past.

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Flanner said:

Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019:
- "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion
- Operations & support 2.3 bn
- Sales & marketing 4.6 bn
- R&D 4.8 bn
- Admin 3.2 bn

IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.

They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.

Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%

Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...

Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".

Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.

The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.

There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.

This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Flanner said:

Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019:
- "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion
- Operations & support 2.3 bn
- Sales & marketing 4.6 bn
- R&D 4.8 bn
- Admin 3.2 bn

IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.

They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.

Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%

Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...

Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".

Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.

The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.

There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.

This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.

Edinburgh Uber's are fully licensed minicabs aren't they?

LadyG said:

Alistair said:

LadyG said:

Alistair said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

rawliberal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by

But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?

We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.

I am undecided as to whether the BBC is a good thing. In my opinion you have to split it up into its component parts. You can't just say "what about Netflix.."

So you could have the following subscription services:

1. News (regional subsets thereof)
2. Sport (regional subsets thereof)
3. Weather (regional subsets thereof)
4. Comedy
5. Drama
6. Documentaries
7. Natural History
8. Children's programmes
9. Radio (subsets thereof)
10. Politics
11. Films
12. etc

If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.

Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.

The BBC could lose news, sport, weather and politics and no one would care that much.

That's literally all that differentiates it TV-wise from Netflix though.

Ultimately if the BBC is great value for money people will be prepared to pay for it from free choice. The only reason people are so horrified about the idea of it being a free choice is they're aware that many people won't find it good value for money.

Um, Netflix buys in made programmes and has only recently begun to produce "Netflix Original Series" and films. The BBC makes programmes. As well as everything else.

This is another of those Brexit issues. On the face of it (getting rid of the BBC or the license fee) seems like a good idea. When you actually delve into it, it's an illogical one. And would likely end up costing most people more.

Good for the BBC to be producing something. If it produces stuff that people wish to pay for then they should be free to do so. Free choice, I'm a big advocate of that.

Netflix produce far better original series and films than the BBC does in my humble opinion.

Do you know how much Netflix spends on original programming? How much the BBC does?

And as for spending. Look at Netflix's cashflow.

It is still operating on the model of selling people dollar bills for 80 cents.

They used to say the same about amazon. "Look, it's never made a profit!!

https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/30/amazon-earnings-q4-2019/


"Amazon reports $87.4 billion in Q4 2019 revenue: AWS up 34%, subscriptions up 32%, and ‘other’ up 41%"


Eighty seven BILLION in revenue

This is how you win in the internet. You "blitzscale". You spend and spend and spend - and don't make a profit for years - until you become so big you completely dominate the market, and crush all competition. THEN you sit back and start reaping the billions.

Uber is trying to do exactly this.

Uber have no route to profitability.
Amazon always had a route to profitability.

Uber is a hard one to call. It's a brilliant idea, but it may be overtaken by events - the plague - and by tech change.

The future is surely small electric driverless vehicles, or air craft, that you can summon with an app *like* Uber. But it might not be THE Uber doing it, though they are having a go:

https://www.uber.com/gb/en/elevate/#:~:text=Uber Air is our most,Learn more

Uber is an awful idea. Venture capitalist subsidised mini-cabs is an awful pitch.

And that was their pitch. I've seen their original pitch deck. Their idea was luxury limousines summoned as a mini-cab rather than hired for a while evening.

There was absolutely nothing there about autonomous vehicles or clever AI or any of that nonsense. They literally pitched themselves as an up market minicab firm.

They have lost vast sums of money on their minicab operation whilst researching autonomous vehicles. It would have been better for them if they didn't run a massive loss making minicab firm and were just a research outfit.

And even if they get to autonomous vehicles they still don't have a path to profitability

I know their history. And yes they started as the luxe offering you describe.

But THEN they realised that in an era of ubiquitous smartphones with detailed real-time maps, showing location, you could have a universal instant ride-hailing service, with automatic payment and no cash or cards involved. It is brilliant.

And it IS the future, as owning cars becomes an unnecessary extravagance. Owning your own car in the future will be like owning a horse now, whereas once owning horses was extremely common.

What's more, you could argue that their model becomes more valid post-Covid: there's no exchange of money or cards (less infection), fewer people will want to use trains (increase in passengers) and if they get their Holy Grail of driverless vehicles then that's probably the ideal way to move around, if you want to stay bug-free

HOWEVER I agree they are right on a knife edge because they haven't crushed the competition yet, they have regulatory issues (just like Airbnb) and they are still spending billions with no profit.

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Flanner said:

Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019:
- "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion
- Operations & support 2.3 bn
- Sales & marketing 4.6 bn
- R&D 4.8 bn
- Admin 3.2 bn

IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.

They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.

Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%

Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...

Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".

Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.

The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.

There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.

This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.

Edinburgh Uber's are fully licensed minicabs aren't they?

No, in that they can't pick people up at random. They have to be ordered. But I think Edinburgh has insisted that they have to meet minicab standards for safety, hygiene etc.

Flatlander said:

Pro_Rata said:

tlg86 said:

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1278339992423563264?s=20

I wonder what the common theme is?

Are you including Barnsley in that theme ?

Exception to the rule.

In all seriousness, I wonder what specifically is the issue? Is it workplaces, large household sizes, or something else?

The locations to me run approximately NW to SE the length of the country and represent, as much as anything else, a border between higher incidence west of the line, and lower incidence east of the line - the wavefront of high infection if you like. This gets squeezed a little at the north end of the line, where in some places higher infection rates have approached from either side and squeezed in towards the Pennines last.

I think if the counties were being reported by lower tier authorities this might provide even a few more data points, e.g. a jump from Southend over into Kent. As it stands you just see the unitaries, and though Asian populations are a common theme why would they be particularly represented in a late June wave? Eid is long past.

This clearly isn't a geographical issue.

I am told that multi-household extended families have still been mixing. It isn't just large single households.

Barnsley is definitely an exception though. Perhaps there's been a factory outbreak?

Burgessian said:

In other news, the penny is dropping that Boris will swat aside demands for IndyRef2 whatever happens in May.
Nicola has ruled out an illegal referendum so will be interesting to see where this goes.
I believe Pete Wishart used to drum for Runrig.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-could-boycott-westminster-if-indyref2-refused-mp-warns-2899906

RandallFlagg said:

In other news, the Judean People's Front has defeated the People's Front of Judea in the Momentum internal elections:
https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1278236864810561536

DavidL said:

RandallFlagg said:

In other news, the Judean People's Front has defeated the People's Front of Judea in the Momentum internal elections:
https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1278236864810561536

I thought it was the other way around.

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Flanner said:

Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019:
- "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion
- Operations & support 2.3 bn
- Sales & marketing 4.6 bn
- R&D 4.8 bn
- Admin 3.2 bn

IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.

They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.

Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%

Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...

Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".

Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.

The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.

There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.

This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.

Edinburgh Uber's are fully licensed minicabs aren't they?

No, in that they can't pick people up at random. They have to be ordered. But I think Edinburgh has insisted that they have to meet minicab standards for safety, hygiene etc.

That's what I mean, all minicabs have to be pre-booked, Uber or not. Only Black cabs can do ad-hoc on street pickup.

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

LadyG said:

From the BBC Wokesite:

BAME people are going off the label "BAME". Some find it cold and patronising (and I can see their point)

In about six months "BAME" will be deemed as racist as "coloured", and it will be a sackable offence to use the term

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53194376

Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...

Gentiles? That's BILLIONS of people. As for BAME, if we need a word in certain circumstances to describe non whites (which I think we do) and BAME were to fall out of favour it would have to be replaced with an alternative. So I suppose we will stick with it unless or until that alternative comes along.

When some people often put in the BAME category are finding the category meaningful and helpful and some often put in the BAME category are finding it meaningless and demeaning, some of them having strong feelings about it both ways, it would seem understandable for non BAME's to have a period of silence on the subject. Except of course that for some 'silence is complicity'.

For myself I totally support the BAME group who find the category useless but would not dare to say so.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

RandallFlagg said:

In other news, the Judean People's Front has defeated the People's Front of Judea in the Momentum internal elections:
https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1278236864810561536

I thought it was the other way around.

So who is the Messiah these days?

isam said:

tlg86 said:

isam said:

LadyG said:

From the BBC Wokesite:

BAME people are going off the label "BAME". Some find it cold and patronising (and I can see their point)

In about six months "BAME" will be deemed as racist as "coloured", and it will be a sackable offence to use the term

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53194376

Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...

EDIT: The A is Asian, isn't it?

I thought it stood for Black and Minority Ethnic

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

RandallFlagg said:

In other news, the Judean People's Front has defeated the People's Front of Judea in the Momentum internal elections:
https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1278236864810561536

I thought it was the other way around.

So who is the Messiah these days?

TimT said:

kinabalu said:

TimT said:

Not sure if these have been posted yet:
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 43 Biden +5
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
Florida: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5
Arizona: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7


President Trump Job Approval CNBC/Change Research (D) Approve 43, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +14
President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 39, Disapprove 59 Disapprove +20
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 44, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +10
President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15
Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 75 Wrong Track +50

So Trump still losing bigly in the battlegrounds, and his job approval is -10 to -20 across 4 different pollsters. 50% think the country is on the wrong track.

I understand others' caution about shy Trumpsters, swing back, and polls this far out. But I really am not seeing or feeling this as a close race.

No. Trump has drifted to 3 but he still looks a clear lay to me. He won't quit the race, though, will he? I hope not and I think not - but what do you think?

I think that there is an outside chance he will. If things get as bad with COVID as Fauci is fearing, if Project Lincoln starts shrinking Trump's base by stripping off appalled thinking conservatives, if the economy shows no signs of recovery and Congress fails to keep supplementing unemployment benefits, if (etc...) - the numbers could start to get truly disastrous for Trump.

He then has a choice of how he wants to be a Loser - on his own terms which he can spin as he wishes by walking away, or on terms set by the electorate where the comparison will be Mondale. The thought of walking away will almost certainly cross his mind at some point. Not sure whether he would do it though - the ego thing will pull in both directions.

Pulpstar said:

What are the 5 protected constituencies -

Orkney and Shetland ; Ynys Mon; Na h-Eileanan an Iar ; Isle of Wight and Argyll & Bute ?

Pulpstar said:

What are the 5 protected constituencies -

Orkney and Shetland ; Ynys Mon; Na h-Eileanan an Iar ; Isle of Wight and Argyll & Bute ?