London is becoming a no go area for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

Fairliered said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

148grss said:

There's a great part in Pratchett's Going Postal where a character describes the con the men who own the Grand Trunk are playing - I don't have the book in front of me, but it's along the lines of: you see an asset that could turn a profit that is currently owned by people who care about the asset as a system and not an asset and therefore do not have a head for business. As someone who wants to turn a profit, you approach these men with no heads for business and say you want to invest in that asset. They agree, always wanting money to spend tinkering in their sheds to improve the systems they care about, and sign your documents. Eventually, you run out of that first bit of money, so when they say they're happy to invest again you sign again without question. But this time you've sold more than a 50% share in the asset, so you no longer own it, and now people with heads for business are in charge and they don't care if the system works - they care that it makes money. So maintenance stops, because that's a cost that doesn't return short term profit, and the system is always pushed to breaking point to make the most money off of it. They bought it dirt cheap, they suck it dry whilst running it into the ground, and they'll also likely make a profit selling it off afterwards to another rube or to the state who need the system to exist for the functioning of society.

Anyway, I give this extremely long preface (apologies as always @TOPPING) to share this unrelated news:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-higher-bills-lower-fines-avoid-bailout-report-claims-somerset-gigafactory-bridgend-tata-us-gdp-business-live

It's an interesting point when the asset is a monopoly public utility like Thames Water.

Thames Water lobbying government to let it increase bills by 40%
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-government-bills-dividends-fines-breaches-taxpayer-bailout

It is not obvious to me that it's a good deal for the UK to force Thames customers effectively to bail out a commercial entity which has previously extracted massive dividends from the business, and which, without the deal which the owners are lobbying for, is effectively bankrupt.

We should put in into administration, and government should take control of the business. The shareholders and bondholders would take massive losses, but that would serve as a useful warning to the commercial owners of UK public service utilities (often overseas) who have been taking the piss for decades.

Government can probably borrow more cheaply anyway, and the necessary price rises for the needed infrastructure improvement would be significantly less. And any future profits would remain in the UK.

An alternative fair plan could be to treat the bill a bit like a share issue.

So let them increase it by the 40% they need but half the company goes to the customers who pay the bills and existing shareholders get diluted.

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

148grss said:

There's a great part in Pratchett's Going Postal where a character describes the con the men who own the Grand Trunk are playing - I don't have the book in front of me, but it's along the lines of: you see an asset that could turn a profit that is currently owned by people who care about the asset as a system and not an asset and therefore do not have a head for business. As someone who wants to turn a profit, you approach these men with no heads for business and say you want to invest in that asset. They agree, always wanting money to spend tinkering in their sheds to improve the systems they care about, and sign your documents. Eventually, you run out of that first bit of money, so when they say they're happy to invest again you sign again without question. But this time you've sold more than a 50% share in the asset, so you no longer own it, and now people with heads for business are in charge and they don't care if the system works - they care that it makes money. So maintenance stops, because that's a cost that doesn't return short term profit, and the system is always pushed to breaking point to make the most money off of it. They bought it dirt cheap, they suck it dry whilst running it into the ground, and they'll also likely make a profit selling it off afterwards to another rube or to the state who need the system to exist for the functioning of society.

Anyway, I give this extremely long preface (apologies as always @TOPPING) to share this unrelated news:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-higher-bills-lower-fines-avoid-bailout-report-claims-somerset-gigafactory-bridgend-tata-us-gdp-business-live

It's an interesting point when the asset is a monopoly public utility like Thames Water.

Thames Water lobbying government to let it increase bills by 40%
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-government-bills-dividends-fines-breaches-taxpayer-bailout

It is not obvious to me that it's a good deal for the UK to force Thames customers effectively to bail out a commercial entity which has previously extracted massive dividends from the business, and which, without the deal which the owners are lobbying for, is effectively bankrupt.

We should put in into administration, and government should take control of the business. The shareholders and bondholders would take massive losses, but that would serve as a useful warning to the commercial owners of UK public service utilities (often overseas) who have been taking the piss for decades.

Government can probably borrow more cheaply anyway, and the necessary price rises for the needed infrastructure improvement would be significantly less. And any future profits would remain in the UK.

An alternative fair plan could be to treat the bill a bit like a share issue.

So let them increase it by the 40% they need but half the company goes to the customers who pay the bills and existing shareholders get diluted.

The problem with that idea is that many of the customers will immediately sell their shares to the existing shareholders, to make a quick buck.

Why is that a problem?

JosiasJessop said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

On topic: I just want to report that I am in the new Air France Business Class 777 Dreamliner thingy, and the seats apparently move automatically


WHOAHHHH

Do you mean 787?

I don't think Leon knows what he means.

Keep safe for future reuse.

@NickyBreakspear
Very interesting, thank you.

In my view the most important finding from that More in Common polling is this:

"Party leaders aren’t wowing voters

The party leaders are not a top draw for any of the key voter groups. People are more likely to be voting against a leader of another party than for their leader. This election will be about parties not personalities."

The election will be about parties not personalities. This is something I think Labour have probably understood but the Conservatives (and many commentators) appear not to. This is a big change from the last election when it really seemed to be Johnson vs Corbyn, as well as Brexit vs Remain.

Also probably true in the trends in Scotland. No longer is it dominated by the huge personalities of Salmond or Sturgeon, so it's now about party positioning.

That Lib Dem voter data point too - that they are voting to get the Tories out. Although they say "people are more likely to be voting against the leader of another party than for their leader" the other data points including this one suggest they're not voting to get Sunak out, nor would they be voting hypothetically to get Badenoch, or Mordaunt, or even a returning Boris out. It's the party. Therefore the idea that changing the leader will transform their fortunes is I think wishful thinking.

People aren't voting specifically for Keir, in the way that perhaps they were doing for Blair. So the strength and cohesion of the Labour front bench becomes more important in convincing the voters. This is where the reasonably solid performances by Streeting, Reeves, Lammy, Reynolds and so on (and even the marginalised but very much on top of his brief Ed Miliband) have helped to project a degree of competence.

Pulpstar said:

Mortimer said:

NickyBreakspear said:

This tends to suggest that the only main potential movement back to the Conservatives are their don't knows. Both Conservative to Labour and Conservative to Reform switchers appear to have gone.

Are the Conservatives focusing on retaining those don't knows, or are their current policies and approach focused on another section of the electorate?

My feeling is the more in common report doesn't capture the scale of the Conservative voter strike, and the depth of their feeling. Many activists I know think Sunak is hopeless and aren't prepared to help what many see as too 'big-government' a government get reelected.

This will only be worse after May, when the councillor base will likely be much smaller too.

The losses if it's council only elections in May will be bad, but my suspicion is they'd be worse if there was a GE as the "extra" turnout will be more favourable to Labour.

True, but less favourable for the Lib Dems.

Pulpstar said:

Fairliered said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

148grss said:

There's a great part in Pratchett's Going Postal where a character describes the con the men who own the Grand Trunk are playing - I don't have the book in front of me, but it's along the lines of: you see an asset that could turn a profit that is currently owned by people who care about the asset as a system and not an asset and therefore do not have a head for business. As someone who wants to turn a profit, you approach these men with no heads for business and say you want to invest in that asset. They agree, always wanting money to spend tinkering in their sheds to improve the systems they care about, and sign your documents. Eventually, you run out of that first bit of money, so when they say they're happy to invest again you sign again without question. But this time you've sold more than a 50% share in the asset, so you no longer own it, and now people with heads for business are in charge and they don't care if the system works - they care that it makes money. So maintenance stops, because that's a cost that doesn't return short term profit, and the system is always pushed to breaking point to make the most money off of it. They bought it dirt cheap, they suck it dry whilst running it into the ground, and they'll also likely make a profit selling it off afterwards to another rube or to the state who need the system to exist for the functioning of society.

Anyway, I give this extremely long preface (apologies as always @TOPPING) to share this unrelated news:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-higher-bills-lower-fines-avoid-bailout-report-claims-somerset-gigafactory-bridgend-tata-us-gdp-business-live

It's an interesting point when the asset is a monopoly public utility like Thames Water.

Thames Water lobbying government to let it increase bills by 40%
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-government-bills-dividends-fines-breaches-taxpayer-bailout

It is not obvious to me that it's a good deal for the UK to force Thames customers effectively to bail out a commercial entity which has previously extracted massive dividends from the business, and which, without the deal which the owners are lobbying for, is effectively bankrupt.

We should put in into administration, and government should take control of the business. The shareholders and bondholders would take massive losses, but that would serve as a useful warning to the commercial owners of UK public service utilities (often overseas) who have been taking the piss for decades.

Government can probably borrow more cheaply anyway, and the necessary price rises for the needed infrastructure improvement would be significantly less. And any future profits would remain in the UK.

An alternative fair plan could be to treat the bill a bit like a share issue.

So let them increase it by the 40% they need but half the company goes to the customers who pay the bills and existing shareholders get diluted.

The problem with that idea is that many of the customers will immediately sell their shares to the existing shareholders, to make a quick buck.

As you can do with any shareholding that pays an ongoing dividend.

@noneoftheabove plan looks equitable to me.

Not to me.
It still involves either the billpayers - or the taxpayer - bailing out £14bn or so of majority foreign owned bad debt

No_Offence_Alan said:

Pulpstar said:

Mortimer said:

NickyBreakspear said:

This tends to suggest that the only main potential movement back to the Conservatives are their don't knows. Both Conservative to Labour and Conservative to Reform switchers appear to have gone.

Are the Conservatives focusing on retaining those don't knows, or are their current policies and approach focused on another section of the electorate?

My feeling is the more in common report doesn't capture the scale of the Conservative voter strike, and the depth of their feeling. Many activists I know think Sunak is hopeless and aren't prepared to help what many see as too 'big-government' a government get reelected.

This will only be worse after May, when the councillor base will likely be much smaller too.

The losses if it's council only elections in May will be bad, but my suspicion is they'd be worse if there was a GE as the "extra" turnout will be more favourable to Labour.

True, but less favourable for the Lib Dems.

I'm not sure it's true actually. The lower the turnout the worse the results for the Tories would be my bet, as they are disproportionately hit by their own voters striking.

Nigelb said:

Pulpstar said:

Fairliered said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

148grss said:

There's a great part in Pratchett's Going Postal where a character describes the con the men who own the Grand Trunk are playing - I don't have the book in front of me, but it's along the lines of: you see an asset that could turn a profit that is currently owned by people who care about the asset as a system and not an asset and therefore do not have a head for business. As someone who wants to turn a profit, you approach these men with no heads for business and say you want to invest in that asset. They agree, always wanting money to spend tinkering in their sheds to improve the systems they care about, and sign your documents. Eventually, you run out of that first bit of money, so when they say they're happy to invest again you sign again without question. But this time you've sold more than a 50% share in the asset, so you no longer own it, and now people with heads for business are in charge and they don't care if the system works - they care that it makes money. So maintenance stops, because that's a cost that doesn't return short term profit, and the system is always pushed to breaking point to make the most money off of it. They bought it dirt cheap, they suck it dry whilst running it into the ground, and they'll also likely make a profit selling it off afterwards to another rube or to the state who need the system to exist for the functioning of society.

Anyway, I give this extremely long preface (apologies as always @TOPPING) to share this unrelated news:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-higher-bills-lower-fines-avoid-bailout-report-claims-somerset-gigafactory-bridgend-tata-us-gdp-business-live

It's an interesting point when the asset is a monopoly public utility like Thames Water.

Thames Water lobbying government to let it increase bills by 40%
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-government-bills-dividends-fines-breaches-taxpayer-bailout

It is not obvious to me that it's a good deal for the UK to force Thames customers effectively to bail out a commercial entity which has previously extracted massive dividends from the business, and which, without the deal which the owners are lobbying for, is effectively bankrupt.

We should put in into administration, and government should take control of the business. The shareholders and bondholders would take massive losses, but that would serve as a useful warning to the commercial owners of UK public service utilities (often overseas) who have been taking the piss for decades.

Government can probably borrow more cheaply anyway, and the necessary price rises for the needed infrastructure improvement would be significantly less. And any future profits would remain in the UK.

An alternative fair plan could be to treat the bill a bit like a share issue.

So let them increase it by the 40% they need but half the company goes to the customers who pay the bills and existing shareholders get diluted.

The problem with that idea is that many of the customers will immediately sell their shares to the existing shareholders, to make a quick buck.

As you can do with any shareholding that pays an ongoing dividend.

@noneoftheabove plan looks equitable to me.

Not to me.
It still involves either the billpayers - or the taxpayer - bailing out £14bn or so of majority foreign owned bad debt

In exchange for shares. It depends on the numbers I suppose, what would their shares be worth vs extra they pay, as long as that can be reasonably matched it seems fair.

kamski said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

Sadiq Khan faces death threats from Islamist extremists, source says
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/27/sadiq-khan-faces-death-threats-from-islamist-extremists-source-says

That's not the killer point the Guardian thinks it is.

That's either a poor attempt at humour, or an exceedingly stupid take on the article.

Nobody who is sensible thinks Khan is under the thumb of Islamists. We don't need to be told this to prove it.

Previously, we've been told about the far-right threats to Khan, but now it's convenient, they tell us about the Islamist threats.

It's not the first time we're hearing about them though, is it?

For example, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-65656310 is from May 23

"Then there are people who follow Daesh (Islamic State) and al-Qaeda who think you can't be a Muslim and a westerner, I get it from both sides in relation to the death threats."

Or you can go back a lot further:
https://www.thepinknews.com/2013/02/18/labour-mp-sadiq-khan-receives-death-threats-for-supporting-same-sex-marriage/

As with all violent fuckwit revolutionaries, purifying The People of The Wrong Sort Of Believers/Traitors is a priority.

IKKKKKKAAAARRRRRAAAA!

Harry has lost his high court case re his security when visiting the UK

LostPassword said:

Apparently Israel is going to supply early warning systems for detecting drone and missile attacks to Ukraine. A consequence for Russia siding with Hamas.

It's probably more to do with Russia and Iran's increasingly close cooperation. Out of necessity Russia is becoming a major Iranian trading partner, and Russian weapons can substantially increase the Iranian threat.

LostPassword said:

Apparently Israel is going to supply early warning systems for detecting drone and missile attacks to Ukraine. A consequence for Russia siding with Hamas.

That will be a total head fuck, taking sides-wise, for just about everyone on PB.

Pulpstar said:

Mortimer said:

NickyBreakspear said:

This tends to suggest that the only main potential movement back to the Conservatives are their don't knows. Both Conservative to Labour and Conservative to Reform switchers appear to have gone.

Are the Conservatives focusing on retaining those don't knows, or are their current policies and approach focused on another section of the electorate?

My feeling is the more in common report doesn't capture the scale of the Conservative voter strike, and the depth of their feeling. Many activists I know think Sunak is hopeless and aren't prepared to help what many see as too 'big-government' a government get reelected.

This will only be worse after May, when the councillor base will likely be much smaller too.

The losses if it's council only elections in May will be bad, but my suspicion is they'd be worse if there was a GE as the "extra" turnout will be more favourable to Labour.

Although in May 2017 Labours LE results weren't great.

The GE less than a month later showed the biggest swing to Labour since WW2

That bloody toxic Corbyn eh

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

Apparently Israel is going to supply early warning systems for detecting drone and missile attacks to Ukraine. A consequence for Russia siding with Hamas.

That will be a total head fuck, taking sides-wise, for just about everyone on PB.

Russia bad. Hamas bad. That's simple enough, isn't it?

I know Israel are now supporting Ukraine, but hey, we've dealt with such mindfucks as the French supporting Ukraine. We can handle this.

No_Offence_Alan said:

TimS said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Pulpstar said:

Mortimer said:

NickyBreakspear said:

This tends to suggest that the only main potential movement back to the Conservatives are their don't knows. Both Conservative to Labour and Conservative to Reform switchers appear to have gone.

Are the Conservatives focusing on retaining those don't knows, or are their current policies and approach focused on another section of the electorate?

My feeling is the more in common report doesn't capture the scale of the Conservative voter strike, and the depth of their feeling. Many activists I know think Sunak is hopeless and aren't prepared to help what many see as too 'big-government' a government get reelected.

This will only be worse after May, when the councillor base will likely be much smaller too.

The losses if it's council only elections in May will be bad, but my suspicion is they'd be worse if there was a GE as the "extra" turnout will be more favourable to Labour.

True, but less favourable for the Lib Dems.

I'm not sure it's true actually. The lower the turnout the worse the results for the Tories would be my bet, as they are disproportionately hit by their own voters striking.

Err, that's what I'm saying, a GE turnout would negate LD local campaigning.

I was responding to the original post to which you'd replied "true, but", rather than the LD point. I don't think the extra GE turnout would benefit Labour in the locals.

Selebian said:

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

Apparently Israel is going to supply early warning systems for detecting drone and missile attacks to Ukraine. A consequence for Russia siding with Hamas.

That will be a total head fuck, taking sides-wise, for just about everyone on PB.

Russia bad. Hamas bad. That's simple enough, isn't it?

I know Israel are now supporting Ukraine, but hey, we've dealt with such mindfucks as the French supporting Ukraine. We can handle this.

Russia bad. Hamas noble, oppressed, democratically-elected freedom fighters seems to be the norm for many if not most PB posters.

turbotubbs said:

Fairliered said:

148grss said:

There's a great part in Pratchett's Going Postal where a character describes the con the men who own the Grand Trunk are playing - I don't have the book in front of me, but it's along the lines of: you see an asset that could turn a profit that is currently owned by people who care about the asset as a system and not an asset and therefore do not have a head for business. As someone who wants to turn a profit, you approach these men with no heads for business and say you want to invest in that asset. They agree, always wanting money to spend tinkering in their sheds to improve the systems they care about, and sign your documents. Eventually, you run out of that first bit of money, so when they say they're happy to invest again you sign again without question. But this time you've sold more than a 50% share in the asset, so you no longer own it, and now people with heads for business are in charge and they don't care if the system works - they care that it makes money. So maintenance stops, because that's a cost that doesn't return short term profit, and the system is always pushed to breaking point to make the most money off of it. They bought it dirt cheap, they suck it dry whilst running it into the ground, and they'll also likely make a profit selling it off afterwards to another rube or to the state who need the system to exist for the functioning of society.

Anyway, I give this extremely long preface (apologies as always @TOPPING) to share this unrelated news:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-higher-bills-lower-fines-avoid-bailout-report-claims-somerset-gigafactory-bridgend-tata-us-gdp-business-live

Unfortunately, Thatcher read Going Postal and decided to turn it into party policy. Which explains the state of our infrastructure.

Well as Going Postal was written in 2004 that seems a bit unlikely.

What it does illustrate, once again, is just how sharp a commentator Pratchett was. Just as with the Vimes's Boot theory. That literary snobs dismissed one of Britain's greatest writers says more about them than anything else. I heard a great story from his later years, of paying a bill of multiple 10's of thousands, with some loose money from a pocket, such was his wealth at that point.

I think pre JKR he was the most internationally translated British author - even more so than JRRT (although that may be apocryphal)

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Without tariffs, the Chinese auto industry is going to be a huge threat to all western manufacturers.

American Test Of $11,500 BYD Seagull: 'This Doesn't Come Across Cheap'
The imported EV hatchback may only cost $11,500 but it impressed industry veteran John McElroy.
https://insideevs.com/news/710364/byd-detroit-import-seagull-caresoft/

Yep, they’re about to become a massive problem. We’re starting to see them in my region at the moment, and they’re probably as close in quality to the Koreans as the Koreans are now to the Japanese, but at a price 30-40% off the Koreans.

For 90% of people it’s going to be all the car they need, and seriously threatens local car manufacturing pretty much everywhere else in the world.

Given our position as net importers, it might be less a worry for us than others.
But that's a mark of the poor state of UK manufacturing.

TOPPING said:

Selebian said:

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

Apparently Israel is going to supply early warning systems for detecting drone and missile attacks to Ukraine. A consequence for Russia siding with Hamas.

That will be a total head fuck, taking sides-wise, for just about everyone on PB.

Russia bad. Hamas bad. That's simple enough, isn't it?

I know Israel are now supporting Ukraine, but hey, we've dealt with such mindfucks as the French supporting Ukraine. We can handle this.

Russia bad. Hamas noble, oppressed, democratically-elected freedom fighters seems to be the norm for many if not most PB posters.

You tend to hear the strongest views on this from the shoutiest most opinionated posters. I would assume the majority view is Russia bad, Hamas bad, Israel (Netanyahu) bad, Ukraine good.

bigjohnowls said:

Pulpstar said:

Mortimer said:

NickyBreakspear said:

This tends to suggest that the only main potential movement back to the Conservatives are their don't knows. Both Conservative to Labour and Conservative to Reform switchers appear to have gone.

Are the Conservatives focusing on retaining those don't knows, or are their current policies and approach focused on another section of the electorate?

My feeling is the more in common report doesn't capture the scale of the Conservative voter strike, and the depth of their feeling. Many activists I know think Sunak is hopeless and aren't prepared to help what many see as too 'big-government' a government get reelected.

This will only be worse after May, when the councillor base will likely be much smaller too.

The losses if it's council only elections in May will be bad, but my suspicion is they'd be worse if there was a GE as the "extra" turnout will be more favourable to Labour.

Although in May 2017 Labours LE results weren't great.

The GE less than a month later showed the biggest swing to Labour since WW2

That bloody toxic Corbyn eh

No it wasn’t.

TimS said:

TOPPING said:

Selebian said:

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

Apparently Israel is going to supply early warning systems for detecting drone and missile attacks to Ukraine. A consequence for Russia siding with Hamas.

That will be a total head fuck, taking sides-wise, for just about everyone on PB.

Russia bad. Hamas bad. That's simple enough, isn't it?

I know Israel are now supporting Ukraine, but hey, we've dealt with such mindfucks as the French supporting Ukraine. We can handle this.

Russia bad. Hamas noble, oppressed, democratically-elected freedom fighters seems to be the norm for many if not most PB posters.

You tend to hear the strongest views on this from the shoutiest most opinionated posters. I would assume the majority view is Russia bad, Hamas bad, Israel (Netanyahu) bad, Ukraine good.

I work on the 'everyone bad' mindset. Brings a simply clarity to geopolitics. In any conflict, the bad fight the bad (as fighting is bad) and it's no surprise that the bad support the bad or - being bad - are bad friends and fail to support the bad or, indeed, turn round and support the other bad side

Nigelb said:

148grss said:

There's a great part in Pratchett's Going Postal where a character describes the con the men who own the Grand Trunk are playing - I don't have the book in front of me, but it's along the lines of: you see an asset that could turn a profit that is currently owned by people who care about the asset as a system and not an asset and therefore do not have a head for business. As someone who wants to turn a profit, you approach these men with no heads for business and say you want to invest in that asset. They agree, always wanting money to spend tinkering in their sheds to improve the systems they care about, and sign your documents. Eventually, you run out of that first bit of money, so when they say they're happy to invest again you sign again without question. But this time you've sold more than a 50% share in the asset, so you no longer own it, and now people with heads for business are in charge and they don't care if the system works - they care that it makes money. So maintenance stops, because that's a cost that doesn't return short term profit, and the system is always pushed to breaking point to make the most money off of it. They bought it dirt cheap, they suck it dry whilst running it into the ground, and they'll also likely make a profit selling it off afterwards to another rube or to the state who need the system to exist for the functioning of society.

Anyway, I give this extremely long preface (apologies as always @TOPPING) to share this unrelated news:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-higher-bills-lower-fines-avoid-bailout-report-claims-somerset-gigafactory-bridgend-tata-us-gdp-business-live

It's an interesting point when the asset is a monopoly public utility like Thames Water.

Thames Water lobbying government to let it increase bills by 40%
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-government-bills-dividends-fines-breaches-taxpayer-bailout

It is not obvious to me that it's a good deal for the UK to force Thames customers effectively to bail out a commercial entity which has previously extracted massive dividends from the business, and which, without the deal which the owners are lobbying for, is effectively bankrupt.

We should put in into administration, and government should take control of the business. The shareholders and bondholders would take massive losses, but that would serve as a useful warning to the commercial owners of UK public service utilities (often overseas) who have been taking the piss for decades.

Government can probably borrow more cheaply anyway, and the necessary price rises for the needed infrastructure improvement would be significantly less. And any future profits would remain in the UK.

Agree.

And also like the hidden zinger:

Thames Water - we take the piss.

Carnyx said:

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Pulpstar said:

Fairliered said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

148grss said:

There's a great part in Pratchett's Going Postal where a character describes the con the men who own the Grand Trunk are playing - I don't have the book in front of me, but it's along the lines of: you see an asset that could turn a profit that is currently owned by people who care about the asset as a system and not an asset and therefore do not have a head for business. As someone who wants to turn a profit, you approach these men with no heads for business and say you want to invest in that asset. They agree, always wanting money to spend tinkering in their sheds to improve the systems they care about, and sign your documents. Eventually, you run out of that first bit of money, so when they say they're happy to invest again you sign again without question. But this time you've sold more than a 50% share in the asset, so you no longer own it, and now people with heads for business are in charge and they don't care if the system works - they care that it makes money. So maintenance stops, because that's a cost that doesn't return short term profit, and the system is always pushed to breaking point to make the most money off of it. They bought it dirt cheap, they suck it dry whilst running it into the ground, and they'll also likely make a profit selling it off afterwards to another rube or to the state who need the system to exist for the functioning of society.

Anyway, I give this extremely long preface (apologies as always @TOPPING) to share this unrelated news:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-higher-bills-lower-fines-avoid-bailout-report-claims-somerset-gigafactory-bridgend-tata-us-gdp-business-live

It's an interesting point when the asset is a monopoly public utility like Thames Water.

Thames Water lobbying government to let it increase bills by 40%
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-government-bills-dividends-fines-breaches-taxpayer-bailout

It is not obvious to me that it's a good deal for the UK to force Thames customers effectively to bail out a commercial entity which has previously extracted massive dividends from the business, and which, without the deal which the owners are lobbying for, is effectively bankrupt.

We should put in into administration, and government should take control of the business. The shareholders and bondholders would take massive losses, but that would serve as a useful warning to the commercial owners of UK public service utilities (often overseas) who have been taking the piss for decades.

Government can probably borrow more cheaply anyway, and the necessary price rises for the needed infrastructure improvement would be significantly less. And any future profits would remain in the UK.

An alternative fair plan could be to treat the bill a bit like a share issue.

So let them increase it by the 40% they need but half the company goes to the customers who pay the bills and existing shareholders get diluted.

The problem with that idea is that many of the customers will immediately sell their shares to the existing shareholders, to make a quick buck.

As you can do with any shareholding that pays an ongoing dividend.

@noneoftheabove plan looks equitable to me.

Not to me.
It still involves either the billpayers - or the taxpayer - bailing out £14bn or so of majority foreign owned bad debt

In exchange for shares. It depends on the numbers I suppose, what would their shares be worth vs extra they pay, as long as that can be reasonably matched it seems fair.

Thames Water is effectively bust without a bailout, so 'shares' are currently worth nothing.

The numbers are that there is around £14bn of debt, much of which was incurred to pay past dividends on both shares and bonds. You're asking billpayers to pay for the debt.

Wiping out the bondholders by way of administration would be a salutary warning to others not to take the piss in the future.

Don't they recycle the piss, rather?

But quite so.

Sorry, you beat me to it.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I read earlier this morning that the Sun is likely to come out for labour

It doesn't appear so from this

https://twitter.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1762745100826767690?t=sjY17HVcnxX3Ise-PnnnCg&s=19

Murdoch has a choice then.

Back Starmer or back a loser. He won't like doing either. I can see him burying all election coverage on about page 14.

Poor Rupert. Couldn't happen to a nicer chap.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Benpointer said:

On the subject of HMRC...

I'm seeing a guy today, a bit 'alternative', he earns only £10-£12k pa as a self-employed jobbing craftsman (his choice). Living very simply he asks for and gets no state help.

But he's in hoc to HRMC for a £2k for failing to file two years tax returns on-line properly. It appears he completed the forms (zero tax to pay) but failed to press 'submit', not really being very IT literate.

He's got no way of paying the fines but they're threatening court action.

Interesting challenge.

IIRC it used to be the case that hmrc couldn't fine you more than the tax you owed, to preclude precisely this kind of case, which offends against natural justice. But the current government got rid of that rule, while its wealthy members pay lower effective tax rates than nurses. Get these people out of government.

That's exactly what I had wondered about - so thanks for clearing that up. I'd had a similar problem with my late mother's tax, not done for 5 years, and she hadn't told me, though in her case ill health and the fact that she was owed back tax for 4 of the 5 probably did the trick to get her off the fine in those years before the rulke change.

I did notice this in the Grsaun earlier. Probably not unrelated, the income has to be made up somehow:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/18/hmrc-investigations-of-wealthy-tax-dodgers-halve-in-five-years

New Space Race is also on.

China’s 2024 space plans include 100 launches and moon sample return mission
https://spacenews.com/chinas-2024-space-plans-include-100-launches-and-moon-sample-return-mission/

Back in 2018, Thames region had the cheapest water:

https://www.freeflush.co.uk/blogs/freeflush-rainwater-harvesting-blog/whos-paying-most-for-water-bills-in-britain#:~:text=The cheapest place to get,reasonable £502 per year.

Carnyx said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Benpointer said:

On the subject of HMRC...

I'm seeing a guy today, a bit 'alternative', he earns only £10-£12k pa as a self-employed jobbing craftsman (his choice). Living very simply he asks for and gets no state help.

But he's in hoc to HRMC for a £2k for failing to file two years tax returns on-line properly. It appears he completed the forms (zero tax to pay) but failed to press 'submit', not really being very IT literate.

He's got no way of paying the fines but they're threatening court action.

Interesting challenge.

IIRC it used to be the case that hmrc couldn't fine you more than the tax you owed, to preclude precisely this kind of case, which offends against natural justice. But the current government got rid of that rule, while its wealthy members pay lower effective tax rates than nurses. Get these people out of government.

That's exactly what I had wondered about - so thanks for clearing that up. I'd had a similar problem with my late mother's tax, not done for 5 years, and she hadn't told me, though in her case ill health and the fact that she was owed back tax for 4 of the 5 probably did the trick to get her off the fine in those years before the rulke change.

I did notice this in the Grsaun earlier. Probably not unrelated, the income has to be made up somehow:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/18/hmrc-investigations-of-wealthy-tax-dodgers-halve-in-five-years

@benpointer I heard a similar story albeit from a wealthy professional couple and only one year’s (non)submission . In the end the Taxman relented but took a protracted battle and a long period of correspondence.

Carnyx said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Benpointer said:

On the subject of HMRC...

I'm seeing a guy today, a bit 'alternative', he earns only £10-£12k pa as a self-employed jobbing craftsman (his choice). Living very simply he asks for and gets no state help.

But he's in hoc to HRMC for a £2k for failing to file two years tax returns on-line properly. It appears he completed the forms (zero tax to pay) but failed to press 'submit', not really being very IT literate.

He's got no way of paying the fines but they're threatening court action.

Interesting challenge.

IIRC it used to be the case that hmrc couldn't fine you more than the tax you owed, to preclude precisely this kind of case, which offends against natural justice. But the current government got rid of that rule, while its wealthy members pay lower effective tax rates than nurses. Get these people out of government.

That's exactly what I had wondered about - so thanks for clearing that up. I'd had a similar problem with my late mother's tax, not done for 5 years, and she hadn't told me, though in her case ill health and the fact that she was owed back tax for 4 of the 5 probably did the trick to get her off the fine in those years before the rulke change.

I did notice this in the Grsaun earlier. Probably not unrelated, the income has to be made up somehow:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/18/hmrc-investigations-of-wealthy-tax-dodgers-halve-in-five-years

I wonder which group funds the Tory party?

kamski said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

Sadiq Khan faces death threats from Islamist extremists, source says
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/27/sadiq-khan-faces-death-threats-from-islamist-extremists-source-says

That's not the killer point the Guardian thinks it is.

That's either a poor attempt at humour, or an exceedingly stupid take on the article.

Nobody who is sensible thinks Khan is under the thumb of Islamists. We don't need to be told this to prove it.

Previously, we've been told about the far-right threats to Khan, but now it's convenient, they tell us about the Islamist threats.

It's not the first time we're hearing about them though, is it?

For example, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-65656310 is from May 23

"Then there are people who follow Daesh (Islamic State) and al-Qaeda who think you can't be a Muslim and a westerner, I get it from both sides in relation to the death threats."

Or you can go back a lot further:
https://www.thepinknews.com/2013/02/18/labour-mp-sadiq-khan-receives-death-threats-for-supporting-same-sex-marriage/

This is what is so stupid about the Tory narrative, it gives credence to the view that a Muslim can't be a westerner. They're singing from the Al qaeda hymn book.

Selebian said:

TimS said:

TOPPING said:

Selebian said:

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

Apparently Israel is going to supply early warning systems for detecting drone and missile attacks to Ukraine. A consequence for Russia siding with Hamas.

That will be a total head fuck, taking sides-wise, for just about everyone on PB.

Russia bad. Hamas bad. That's simple enough, isn't it?

I know Israel are now supporting Ukraine, but hey, we've dealt with such mindfucks as the French supporting Ukraine. We can handle this.

Russia bad. Hamas noble, oppressed, democratically-elected freedom fighters seems to be the norm for many if not most PB posters.

You tend to hear the strongest views on this from the shoutiest most opinionated posters. I would assume the majority view is Russia bad, Hamas bad, Israel (Netanyahu) bad, Ukraine good.

I work on the 'everyone bad' mindset. Brings a simply clarity to geopolitics. In any conflict, the bad fight the bad (as fighting is bad) and it's no surprise that the bad support the bad or - being bad - are bad friends and fail to support the bad or, indeed, turn round and support the other bad side

Working out which is the LEAST bad occupies many of my waking hours.

Utterly pathetic from Sunak . What a horrid little man .

God, what a dirty, ill-tempered PMQs exchange.

Pro_Rata said:

God, what a dirty, ill-tempered PMQs exchange.

Just a warm up for the General Election!

No_Offence_Alan said:

Nigelb said:

148grss said:

There's a great part in Pratchett's Going Postal where a character describes the con the men who own the Grand Trunk are playing - I don't have the book in front of me, but it's along the lines of: you see an asset that could turn a profit that is currently owned by people who care about the asset as a system and not an asset and therefore do not have a head for business. As someone who wants to turn a profit, you approach these men with no heads for business and say you want to invest in that asset. They agree, always wanting money to spend tinkering in their sheds to improve the systems they care about, and sign your documents. Eventually, you run out of that first bit of money, so when they say they're happy to invest again you sign again without question. But this time you've sold more than a 50% share in the asset, so you no longer own it, and now people with heads for business are in charge and they don't care if the system works - they care that it makes money. So maintenance stops, because that's a cost that doesn't return short term profit, and the system is always pushed to breaking point to make the most money off of it. They bought it dirt cheap, they suck it dry whilst running it into the ground, and they'll also likely make a profit selling it off afterwards to another rube or to the state who need the system to exist for the functioning of society.

Anyway, I give this extremely long preface (apologies as always @TOPPING) to share this unrelated news:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-higher-bills-lower-fines-avoid-bailout-report-claims-somerset-gigafactory-bridgend-tata-us-gdp-business-live

It's an interesting point when the asset is a monopoly public utility like Thames Water.

Thames Water lobbying government to let it increase bills by 40%
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-government-bills-dividends-fines-breaches-taxpayer-bailout

It is not obvious to me that it's a good deal for the UK to force Thames customers effectively to bail out a commercial entity which has previously extracted massive dividends from the business, and which, without the deal which the owners are lobbying for, is effectively bankrupt.

We should put in into administration, and government should take control of the business. The shareholders and bondholders would take massive losses, but that would serve as a useful warning to the commercial owners of UK public service utilities (often overseas) who have been taking the piss for decades.

Government can probably borrow more cheaply anyway, and the necessary price rises for the needed infrastructure improvement would be significantly less. And any future profits would remain in the UK.

Agree, apart from a "lol" for the "future profits" bit.

Has anyone made the connection with the header? (Apols. if they have.)

It seems pretty potent to me.

Leon said:

How does someone as stupid as @Roger even have a vote?

How can you be so stupid you do not realise that the Islamification of London has made it in, in places, a much more intolerant, homophobic, and anti-Semitic place?

My hope is that Brexit has denied him a vote, so he can only exercise a vote in, lol, Marine le Pen’s France

You might enjoy 'How They broke Britain' by James O'Brien. Very well written very funny and as good a reflection on UK politics as you could find. Much better than his LBC slots which are also good

Foxy said:

Leon said:

How does someone as stupid as @Roger even have a vote?

How can you be so stupid you do not realise that the Islamification of London has made it in, in places, a much more intolerant, homophobic, and anti-Semitic place?

My hope is that Brexit has denied him a vote, so he can only exercise a vote in, lol, Marine le Pen’s France

You are Lee Anderson and I claim my £5.

Relying on documentaries for the views of a community is equally stupid.

I recall having a coffee by Hungerford Bridge by Waterloo, one afternoon. A film crew was making a piece on public views on a political topic. I think it was civil partnerships. They would pick someone coming over the bridge, and start filming them. Once the person started saying something reasonable, they would stop filming. Most people were "whatever, fine with me".

Once in a while they got a nutter and filmed a nice long piece.

It was in the very early days of smart phones. I started filming them filming. The lady running the show came over and demanded I stop. Apparently me filming them filming people was harassment.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/28/more-than-half-of-tory-members-in-poll-say-islam-a-threat-to-british-way-of-life

Quite a revealing poll on the depth of anti-muslim opinions and other eyebrow raising views among Tory members. Scary to think that this extremist group put some of the last few prime ministers in office with no input from the wider electorate.

londonpubman said:

Pro_Rata said:

God, what a dirty, ill-tempered PMQs exchange.

Just a warm up for the General Election!

Just abuse sent back and forward. Nothing that remotely resembled a question and even less that looked like an answer.

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Pulpstar said:

Fairliered said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

148grss said:

There's a great part in Pratchett's Going Postal where a character describes the con the men who own the Grand Trunk are playing - I don't have the book in front of me, but it's along the lines of: you see an asset that could turn a profit that is currently owned by people who care about the asset as a system and not an asset and therefore do not have a head for business. As someone who wants to turn a profit, you approach these men with no heads for business and say you want to invest in that asset. They agree, always wanting money to spend tinkering in their sheds to improve the systems they care about, and sign your documents. Eventually, you run out of that first bit of money, so when they say they're happy to invest again you sign again without question. But this time you've sold more than a 50% share in the asset, so you no longer own it, and now people with heads for business are in charge and they don't care if the system works - they care that it makes money. So maintenance stops, because that's a cost that doesn't return short term profit, and the system is always pushed to breaking point to make the most money off of it. They bought it dirt cheap, they suck it dry whilst running it into the ground, and they'll also likely make a profit selling it off afterwards to another rube or to the state who need the system to exist for the functioning of society.

Anyway, I give this extremely long preface (apologies as always @TOPPING) to share this unrelated news:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-higher-bills-lower-fines-avoid-bailout-report-claims-somerset-gigafactory-bridgend-tata-us-gdp-business-live

It's an interesting point when the asset is a monopoly public utility like Thames Water.

Thames Water lobbying government to let it increase bills by 40%
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-government-bills-dividends-fines-breaches-taxpayer-bailout

It is not obvious to me that it's a good deal for the UK to force Thames customers effectively to bail out a commercial entity which has previously extracted massive dividends from the business, and which, without the deal which the owners are lobbying for, is effectively bankrupt.

We should put in into administration, and government should take control of the business. The shareholders and bondholders would take massive losses, but that would serve as a useful warning to the commercial owners of UK public service utilities (often overseas) who have been taking the piss for decades.

Government can probably borrow more cheaply anyway, and the necessary price rises for the needed infrastructure improvement would be significantly less. And any future profits would remain in the UK.

An alternative fair plan could be to treat the bill a bit like a share issue.

So let them increase it by the 40% they need but half the company goes to the customers who pay the bills and existing shareholders get diluted.

The problem with that idea is that many of the customers will immediately sell their shares to the existing shareholders, to make a quick buck.

As you can do with any shareholding that pays an ongoing dividend.

@noneoftheabove plan looks equitable to me.

Not to me.
It still involves either the billpayers - or the taxpayer - bailing out £14bn or so of majority foreign owned bad debt

In exchange for shares. It depends on the numbers I suppose, what would their shares be worth vs extra they pay, as long as that can be reasonably matched it seems fair.

Thames Water is effectively bust without a bailout, so 'shares' are currently worth nothing.

The numbers are that there is around £14bn of debt, much of which was incurred to pay past dividends on both shares and bonds. You're asking billpayers to pay for the debt.

Wiping out the bondholders by way of administration would be a salutary warning to others not to take the piss in the future.

Who owns Thames Water's debt?

DavidL said:

bigjohnowls said:

Looks like Angela Raynor has been up to something dodgy. Manor from heaven for SKS who has been wanting her out for years

https://twitter.com/MarkVipond/status/1762556464780992909

Meh, you are entitled to elect what is your main residence in any tax year. I don't think she has done anything wrong here. Had she rented it out it might have been different but there is no evidence of that.

That has always been my understanding. Seems like someone's out to get her with poorly researched material.

Roger said:

Leon said:

How does someone as stupid as @Roger even have a vote?

How can you be so stupid you do not realise that the Islamification of London has made it in, in places, a much more intolerant, homophobic, and anti-Semitic place?

My hope is that Brexit has denied him a vote, so he can only exercise a vote in, lol, Marine le Pen’s France

You might enjoy 'How They broke Britain' by James O'Brien. Very well written very funny and as good a reflection on UK politics as you could find. Much better than his LBC slots which are also good

If you are young pretty female and fond of miniskirts, or indeed lesbian or gay and keen on holding hands, there are many places in Britain, sadly, where you will now find a much more hostile atmosphere than would have been the case 20 years ago

And the reason is Islam

it would be a wonderful world if all British Muslims were as liberal, amusing and tolerant as our own @TSE but sadly that is not the case

MightyAlex said:

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Pulpstar said:

Fairliered said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

148grss said:

There's a great part in Pratchett's Going Postal where a character describes the con the men who own the Grand Trunk are playing - I don't have the book in front of me, but it's along the lines of: you see an asset that could turn a profit that is currently owned by people who care about the asset as a system and not an asset and therefore do not have a head for business. As someone who wants to turn a profit, you approach these men with no heads for business and say you want to invest in that asset. They agree, always wanting money to spend tinkering in their sheds to improve the systems they care about, and sign your documents. Eventually, you run out of that first bit of money, so when they say they're happy to invest again you sign again without question. But this time you've sold more than a 50% share in the asset, so you no longer own it, and now people with heads for business are in charge and they don't care if the system works - they care that it makes money. So maintenance stops, because that's a cost that doesn't return short term profit, and the system is always pushed to breaking point to make the most money off of it. They bought it dirt cheap, they suck it dry whilst running it into the ground, and they'll also likely make a profit selling it off afterwards to another rube or to the state who need the system to exist for the functioning of society.

Anyway, I give this extremely long preface (apologies as always @TOPPING) to share this unrelated news:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-higher-bills-lower-fines-avoid-bailout-report-claims-somerset-gigafactory-bridgend-tata-us-gdp-business-live

It's an interesting point when the asset is a monopoly public utility like Thames Water.

Thames Water lobbying government to let it increase bills by 40%
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/28/thames-water-lobbying-government-bills-dividends-fines-breaches-taxpayer-bailout

It is not obvious to me that it's a good deal for the UK to force Thames customers effectively to bail out a commercial entity which has previously extracted massive dividends from the business, and which, without the deal which the owners are lobbying for, is effectively bankrupt.

We should put in into administration, and government should take control of the business. The shareholders and bondholders would take massive losses, but that would serve as a useful warning to the commercial owners of UK public service utilities (often overseas) who have been taking the piss for decades.

Government can probably borrow more cheaply anyway, and the necessary price rises for the needed infrastructure improvement would be significantly less. And any future profits would remain in the UK.

An alternative fair plan could be to treat the bill a bit like a share issue.

So let them increase it by the 40% they need but half the company goes to the customers who pay the bills and existing shareholders get diluted.

The problem with that idea is that many of the customers will immediately sell their shares to the existing shareholders, to make a quick buck.

As you can do with any shareholding that pays an ongoing dividend.

@noneoftheabove plan looks equitable to me.

Not to me.
It still involves either the billpayers - or the taxpayer - bailing out £14bn or so of majority foreign owned bad debt

In exchange for shares. It depends on the numbers I suppose, what would their shares be worth vs extra they pay, as long as that can be reasonably matched it seems fair.

Thames Water is effectively bust without a bailout, so 'shares' are currently worth nothing.

The numbers are that there is around £14bn of debt, much of which was incurred to pay past dividends on both shares and bonds. You're asking billpayers to pay for the debt.

Wiping out the bondholders by way of administration would be a salutary warning to others not to take the piss in the future.

Who owns Thames Water's debt?

Pension funds, domestic and international. Including a big chunk to the UK Universities pension (comedy) scheme.

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/historic-moment-as-sinn-fein-fm-stands-for-god-save-the-king-at-windsor-park/a873868716.html

I remember when I was a nipper Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine were mentioned in the same breath.

viewcode said:

Selebian said:

TimS said:

TOPPING said:

Selebian said:

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

Apparently Israel is going to supply early warning systems for detecting drone and missile attacks to Ukraine. A consequence for Russia siding with Hamas.

That will be a total head fuck, taking sides-wise, for just about everyone on PB.

Russia bad. Hamas bad. That's simple enough, isn't it?

I know Israel are now supporting Ukraine, but hey, we've dealt with such mindfucks as the French supporting Ukraine. We can handle this.

Russia bad. Hamas noble, oppressed, democratically-elected freedom fighters seems to be the norm for many if not most PB posters.

You tend to hear the strongest views on this from the shoutiest most opinionated posters. I would assume the majority view is Russia bad, Hamas bad, Israel (Netanyahu) bad, Ukraine good.

I work on the 'everyone bad' mindset. Brings a simply clarity to geopolitics. In any conflict, the bad fight the bad (as fighting is bad) and it's no surprise that the bad support the bad or - being bad - are bad friends and fail to support the bad or, indeed, turn round and support the other bad side

I wonder if Terry Pratchett had a saying for such an occasion

‘if you want to understan’ an enemy, you gotta walk a mile in his shoes. Den, if he’s still you enemy, at least you’re a mile away and he’s got no shoes.’

Leon said:

Roger said:

Leon said:

How does someone as stupid as @Roger even have a vote?

How can you be so stupid you do not realise that the Islamification of London has made it in, in places, a much more intolerant, homophobic, and anti-Semitic place?

My hope is that Brexit has denied him a vote, so he can only exercise a vote in, lol, Marine le Pen’s France

You might enjoy 'How They broke Britain' by James O'Brien. Very well written very funny and as good a reflection on UK politics as you could find. Much better than his LBC slots which are also good

If you are young pretty female and fond of miniskirts, or indeed lesbian or gay and keen on holding hands, there are many places in Britain, sadly, where you will now find a much more hostile atmosphere than would have been the case 20 years ago

And the reason is Islam

it would be a wonderful world if all British Muslims were as liberal, amusing and tolerant as our own @TSE but sadly that is not the case

I suggest you come up to The Village in Manchester one night, all the times my friends have suffered homophobic abuse at The Village/and or leaving it is from white people.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Harry has lost his high court case re his security when visiting the UK

Oh Dear
How Sad
Never Mind

After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE

It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this

And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Harry has lost his high court case re his security when visiting the UK

Oh Dear
How Sad
Never Mind

I think this one is much more important (financially & otherwise) than the papers one, or would that be wrong ?

Pulpstar said:

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Harry has lost his high court case re his security when visiting the UK

Oh Dear
How Sad
Never Mind

I think this one is much more important (financially & otherwise) than the papers one, or would that be wrong ?

Looks as if it will curtail his visits especially with Megan