Howdy, Stranger!

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

Trump had another totally normal day yesterday – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,821
    DougSeal said:

    Are you taking the absolute piss? With MrbEd, Leon, Pagan2, HYUFD, Max… I could go on. The site is full of right wing late middle aged blokes who think they are edgy and will create outrage when, in truth, their views are well aired in both the mainstream and
    alternative news. The liberal left is in a distinct minority on here. Rightist views dominate.
    Not convinced. Is there is single contributor who will defend Trump's actions WRT 6th January or attempted vote rigging or the EDL. Are there even any who strongly supported the Rwanda scheme, giving a reasoned account of how it could work?
  • Cookie said:

    That is true, but does not contradict the above point that "Getting hit at 20mph now is likely to be worse than being hit at 30mph some twenty/thirty years ago.".

    Perhaps rather than having a speed limit we should have a momentum limit?
    It does contradict it.

    A lot of arguments being made still rely upon old data. Most claims made by "road safety campaigners" who want speed limits cut use obsolete data from the 1970s or 1990s to back up their claims . . . because the data today does not.

    Pedestrian casualty rates have collapsed in recent decades: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2022/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2022

    In 2004 there were 53.6 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.
    In 2022 there were 26.5 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.

    Pedestrians, not drivers, are twice as safe as they were previously.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,519
    edited August 2024
    'Roy Cooper Withdraws From Harris’s Vice-Presidential Field
    Mr. Cooper, the governor of North Carolina, had been seen as one of the half-dozen top candidates to join the Democratic presidential ticket....“This just wasn’t the right time for North Carolina and for me to potentially be on a national ticket,” Mr. Cooper wrote. “She has an outstanding list of people from which to choose, and we’ll all work to make sure she wins.”

    Mr. Cooper, who previously served as chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, was asked last week by the Harris campaign to be vetted for vice president but declined to participate, according to two people engaged in the process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.'

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/us/politics/roy-cooper-kamala-harris-vp.html
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716
    DougSeal said:

    On topic - this is the Access Hollywood tape redux. It won’t make a shred of difference and Trump will win, perhaps not as convincingly as he would have done against Biden, but handsomely enough. Nothing can stop that.

    It might be my memory playing tricks on me but I think the Access Hollywood tape made plenty of difference. Trump's team certainly thought it was hurting them, that's why Trump paid off Stormy Daniels when Trump was initially inclined to just let her say whatever she was going to say. It ultimately wasn't enough to lose him the election, but without his lucky break with the Comey stuff it probably would have been.

    I don't think this footage in itself is massively damaging, but the relevant thing it shows is that Trump is only capable of doing friendly media (unlike 2016 Trump).
  • HYUFD said:

    It took 3 consecutive general election defeats for Foot and Kinnock to get to Blair.

    Of course part of the reason Trump got the nomination in the first place is the GOP had picked centrists twice in a row, McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 and both had lost. Trump then surprisingly won in 2016 and although he lost in 2020 it would likely take defeats for both him in November and Vance or De Santis in 2028 (one of whom is the likely next GOP nominee) for them to pick a centrist like Haley again
    That last sentence is why the Republicans have a problem. Haley may be non-MAGA, and that may count as centrist these days, but it's a rum sort of centrism.

    (See Sunak for a milder version of the same effect.)

    Assuming that the Republicans can avoid putting up Trump up again in 2028 (even if he's in an orange jumpsuit or six feet under), presumably the temptation will be to go for MAGA without Trump. But as Vance is showing, MAGA needs Trump to work, because MAGA is Trump.
  • Ofwat have a quite wide brief. They have to approve pricing and investment plans for the utilities on a 5 year basis. They also have to ensure the basic financial stability of the Water cos which is why TW now finds itself breaking its covenants to the regulator and hence more pressure on itself and HMG.

    The industry is a regulated industry, it's just the regulator is crap.
    The core business of the water companies is profitable.

    If they're losing money due to bad management of loans then tough shit.

    That is the bondholders/shareholders responsibility not the taxpayers responsibility and they need to face the consequences of their choices.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,342
    Foss said:

    The age bubble is also an issue. Media consuption in the under 34s is now so radically different to media consuption in the over 44s that they might as well be different countries.


    As an illustration - this is OFCOMs latest estimates of in-home video consumption. Those huge pink blocks in the <35s? That’s video social media. And that’s why, in spite of PBs periodic desire to see social media banned*, it won’t be. To do so would be electoral suicide.


    *(though, of course, not the good ship PB as we’re one of the good one!)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,860
    .

    Why is that the regulators responsibility?

    The regulators responsibility is to ensure water is clean. That happened, in leaps and bounds, post-privatisation.

    It is shareholders/bondholders responsibility to look after their interests. It is not the regulators responsibility to look after bondholders, it is the regulators responsibility to look after the public.
    But the regulators are also responsible for deciding how much money a monopoly can charge, of course; the market can't do that. Macquarie completely hoodwinked them.

    The other point is that we're not starting from scratch now. Thames has been loaded up with a huge amount of debt, and the owners are arguing the regulator should help them finance it by putting up prices.
    Parsing out what amount of debt is reasonable in terms of financing infrastructure work - and how much has been incurred simply as a means of extracting cash out of the company (which definitely happened under Macquarie) - is now as much a political as it is a regulatory issue.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,651
    HYUFD said:

    That isn't really true, 38% of UK voters voted Tory or Reform on 4th July, I would guess less than 38% of PBers did.

    This site is largely liberal centrist and always has been, I would expect more PBers than the UK average vote LD in particular
    Balderdash, to resurrect an underused phrase
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716
    edited August 2024
    algarkirk said:

    Not convinced. Is there is single contributor who will defend Trump's actions WRT 6th January or attempted vote rigging or the EDL. Are there even any who strongly supported the Rwanda scheme, giving a reasoned account of how it could work?
    Hardly any Trumpists anywhere will try to defend his actions over January 6th. They do deflection and what-aboutism.

    This is also what Trump does in the interview, but unfortunately he doesn't have the agility he used to so he ends up going with "sure those police got their ribs broken and one of them died of a stroke, but what about those left-wing protestors who sprayed paint on a memorial? Do you know how hard it is to get paint off granite"?
  • Nigelb said:

    .

    But the regulators are also responsible for deciding how much money a monopoly can charge, of course; the market can't do that. Macquarie completely hoodwinked them.

    The other point is that we're not starting from scratch now. Thames has been loaded up with a huge amount of debt, and the owners are arguing the regulator should help them finance it by putting up prices.
    Parsing out what amount of debt is reasonable in terms of financing infrastructure work - and how much has been incurred simply as a means of extracting cash out of the company (which definitely happened under Macquarie) - is now as much a political as it is a regulatory issue.
    The owners can argue what they like.

    The regulator should say "no". The shareholders/bondholders made their bed and they can lie in it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,519
    edited August 2024
    DougSeal said:

    Balderdash, to resurrect an underused phrase
    OK, produce the evidence that over 38% of posters on here voted Tory or Reform? I suspect the percentage who voted Reform in particular is well below the 14% of UK voters overall who voted Reform
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,171

    Indeed.

    All of this, plus features like automatic braking, mean both cars and pedestrians are measurably miles safer than they were in the past.
    Not any more, I'm afraid. For pedestrians, that trend has decisively reversed in the USA from around 15 years ago.

    The low point of pedestrian deaths on USA roads was 4109 in 2009. In 2022 there were 7502 pedestrian deaths.

    A total of 7,522 pedestrian deaths occurred in 2022. Pedestrian fatalities account for 18% of all crash fatalities. Although pedestrian deaths in 2022 were approximately the same as in 1975, they have increased 83% since reaching their lowest point in 2009.
    https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians#:~:text=Posted June 2024.-,Trends,their lowest point in 2009.

    UK trends could follow.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,651
    algarkirk said:

    Not convinced. Is there is single contributor who will defend Trump's actions WRT 6th January or attempted vote rigging or the EDL. Are there even any who strongly supported the Rwanda scheme, giving a reasoned account of how it could work?
    WilliamGlenn in re Jan 6 and Leon in re Rwanda to pluck two out of the air.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,692
    Foss said:



    As an illustration - this is OFCOMs latest estimates of in-home video consumption. Those huge pink blocks in the
    This is interesting. Surprising that for the older age groups live TV is still much more prevalent than recorded TV (which I assume includes things like iplayer and More4). Possibly boosted by live sport?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    Foss said:



    As an illustration - this is OFCOMs latest estimates of in-home video consumption. Those huge pink blocks in the
    Yes, no-one under 45 is watching much live TV except for sports, breaking news (when something big happens), or the occasional drama finale (Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad etc).

    The oldies are still watching TV, mostly whatever happens to be on, including plenty of cable news.

    A surprising amount of those youngsters get their news primarily from Instragram and TikTok, with all the issues that might entail.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,641
    HYUFD said:

    OK, produce the evidence that over 38% of posters on here voted Tory or Reform? I suspect the percentage who voted Reform in particular is well below the 14% of UK voters overall who voted Reform
    I voted CON 👍
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,025
    MattW said:

    Not any more, I'm afraid. For pedestrians, that trend has decisively reversed in the USA from around 15 years ago.

    The low point of pedestrian deaths on USA roads was 4109 in 2009. In 2022 there were 7502 pedestrian deaths.

    A total of 7,522 pedestrian deaths occurred in 2022. Pedestrian fatalities account for 18% of all crash fatalities. Although pedestrian deaths in 2022 were approximately the same as in 1975, they have increased 83% since reaching their lowest point in 2009.
    https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians#:~:text=Posted June 2024.-,Trends,their lowest point in 2009.

    UK trends could follow.
    The word "could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
  • MattW said:

    Not any more, I'm afraid. For pedestrians, that trend has decisively reversed in the USA from around 15 years ago.

    The low point of pedestrian deaths on USA roads was 4109 in 2009. In 2022 there were 7502 pedestrian deaths.

    A total of 7,522 pedestrian deaths occurred in 2022. Pedestrian fatalities account for 18% of all crash fatalities. Although pedestrian deaths in 2022 were approximately the same as in 1975, they have increased 83% since reaching their lowest point in 2009.
    https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians#:~:text=Posted June 2024.-,Trends,their lowest point in 2009.

    UK trends could follow.
    In the USA != in the UK.

    The data from the UK is absolutely that pedestrian deaths are collapsing and continue to collapse.

    Since you chose to reference 2009 and 2022 as reference points there, UK data shows a 23% fall in deaths between 2009 and 2022.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,562

    It does contradict it.

    A lot of arguments being made still rely upon old data. Most claims made by "road safety campaigners" who want speed limits cut use obsolete data from the 1970s or 1990s to back up their claims . . . because the data today does not.

    Pedestrian casualty rates have collapsed in recent decades: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2022/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2022

    In 2004 there were 53.6 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.
    In 2022 there were 26.5 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.

    Pedestrians, not drivers, are twice as safe as they were previously.
    Being hit at 30mph is, and always has been, worse than being hit at 20mph. The way cars are constructed and the materials they are made out of has made a big difference between the 1970's and now.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    rcs1000 said:

    The word "could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
    Is that right, pedestrian deaths up 80% in 13 years in the US? What are the major factors behind such an increase? Do people now walk home drunk instead of driving home drunk?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    MattW said:

    I hope there's been a sea change. Nulab did a lot, but got quite bogged down.

    One notorious move was around the Right to Claim Rights of Way due to historic usage, where an agreement had been reached between NFU type bodies and Ramblers type bodies, and Theresa Coffey the Minister threw it out and just abolished it on her own say so at 5 days notice.

    That was later reversed, but it's indicative of the basic assumptions - which have now changed to at least some degree. I'm not sure how far it goes.

    But Theresa Coffey and friends are now largely reduced to a tinny wibbling noise emerging from the dustbin of history. That is, a sunk cost - and we start from here.

    One thing we do have are that creating and upgrading footpaths etc are now in Sustainable Farming Payments, which is an opportunity. That is a Boris Johnson thing worked through this spring - so credit to the Tories for that. I'd like to see Ukraine style field margins with a national network of active travel routes through them.
    Well, NuLab was responsible for the 2003 Scottish legislation, at least in being the major component of the governing coalition, though one would need to do some deep diving to be sure how far the LDs, their partner, drove or hindered the legislation (I suspect the former, if anything). But of course the original legal background was different, even if the landowners tried to argue that that should mean no presumption of legal access at all (ie no rights of way system).
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,766

    The core business of the water companies is profitable.

    If they're losing money due to bad management of loans then tough shit.

    That is the bondholders/shareholders responsibility not the taxpayers responsibility and they need to face the consequences of their choices.
    We should let them go bust. But dont kid yourself that the taxpayer wont be on the hook.

    There will still be a need for people to use water and flush loos. Its a public health issue and HMG will have to step in. Consumers will probably see their water prices double and as I pointed out earlier TW going potentially brings a collapse in its supply chain.

    As part of the privatisation process the Water cos oursourced huge chunks of what I would say are core skills. They cannot do much maintenance except through their supply chain. If that supply chain goes then functioning fresh water and sewage are at risk. Suppliers will need guarntees to keep going and in the mean time they will ramp up their prices and charge pro forms. Somebody has to fund that - it can only be the taxpayer.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,692

    It does contradict it.

    A lot of arguments being made still rely upon old data. Most claims made by "road safety campaigners" who want speed limits cut use obsolete data from the 1970s or 1990s to back up their claims . . . because the data today does not.

    Pedestrian casualty rates have collapsed in recent decades: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2022/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2022

    In 2004 there were 53.6 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.
    In 2022 there were 26.5 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.

    Pedestrians, not drivers, are twice as safe as they were previously.
    No it doesn't. Your point about cars being safer is about their ability to quickly decelerate. But TSE's point remains true - if you get hit at 20mph in a heavy car you will be worse off than if you get hit at 30mph in a light one. That's just physics.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    Nigelb said:

    .

    But the regulators are also responsible for deciding how much money a monopoly can charge, of course; the market can't do that. Macquarie completely hoodwinked them.

    The other point is that we're not starting from scratch now. Thames has been loaded up with a huge amount of debt, and the owners are arguing the regulator should help them finance it by putting up prices.
    Parsing out what amount of debt is reasonable in terms of financing infrastructure work - and how much has been incurred simply as a means of extracting cash out of the company (which definitely happened under Macquarie) - is now as much a political as it is a regulatory issue.
    The shareholders failed in their due diligence in that case. The taxpayer/bill payer shouldn't pay for that failure and the regulator needs to be stern here and tell them to get fucked.

    It's time to let it go bankrupt along with all of the other water companies, have the bondholders take a hefty haircut and let them either take it over or sell the assets to the state for a nominal amount on the basis that the state takes on the remaining liability ~ 30-40% of what it is currently.

    Water is one part of our infrastructure that should never have been privatised and Labour have an opportunity to bring it all back under state ownership over the next 5 years by working with the regulator to wipe out the shareholders.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,692
    algarkirk said:

    Not convinced. Is there is single contributor who will defend Trump's actions WRT 6th January or attempted vote rigging or the EDL. Are there even any who strongly supported the Rwanda scheme, giving a reasoned account of how it could work?
    I agree. The strongest support of Rwanda on here was "well, we've got to try something. It might work".
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,641
    Interest rates soon.

    There has been some expectation of a cut but will it happen this time given that the Bank will be aware that Rachel's MASSIVE public sector pay rises will provide a MASSIVE boost to inflation

    I project a 5-4 vote to keep rates at 5.25%
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    Cookie said:

    No it doesn't. Your point about cars being safer is about their ability to quickly decelerate. But TSE's point remains true - if you get hit at 20mph in a heavy car you will be worse off than if you get hit at 30mph in a light one. That's just physics.
    Not true, if the mass of the person hit is small compared to the mass of the car doing the hitting. Think of a fly on the car windscreen. It's going to be squashed much more easily at high speeds, with very little difference due toi car mass.

    There are also issues about the transfer of kinetic energy, the speed of the transfer, and the impact of the unfortunate pedestrian on the ground or against lampposts at speed which is conferred by the car.
  • Nigelb said:

    You don't have to be an expert to note on a gross scale how badly regulators have got it wrong. The ministers with responsibility could very easily have noted how much cash was going out as dividends. compared to what was being spent on infrastructure. If they'd thought to ask.

    We aren't arguing over minutiae.
    So you want some 'here today gone next year' politician to overrule the regulator ?

    The regulator being the expert and doing the job permanently the politician very unlikely to be an expert and having a few hours to look at the info.

    Lets just say it would be a 'brave' decision by the politician.

    And what would be the result - lots of aggravation whatever happens, especially so if the politician is mistaken and with likely no thanks if the politician turns out to be correct.

    Of course there are sometimes 'brave' politicians:

    Liz Truss is likely to give ministers the power to overturn some financial regulators’ decisions if she becomes UK prime minister, a potential move that could set up fresh tensions with the Bank of England.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-10/truss-supports-giving-uk-ministers-power-to-overrule-regulators
  • Cookie said:

    No it doesn't. Your point about cars being safer is about their ability to quickly decelerate. But TSE's point remains true - if you get hit at 20mph in a heavy car you will be worse off than if you get hit at 30mph in a light one. That's just physics.
    Wrong, that's only the case if its a like-for-like comparison but it is not.

    Its not just physics because car shapes and designs have changed, in no small part in Europe (not USA!) because of EU regulations.

    Cars are obliged to pass safety tests before they go on the market that they weren't 30 years ago. A lot of work has been done on safety, and aerodynamics etc too.

    So while if you're hit by a bus or truck its like being hit by a moving brick wall, if you're hit by a car it is not and the cars are designed better to allow the body to react to the collision in a manner that better suits the human body.

    I'd far rather be hit by a car at 30 by a 2022 car than at a 1992 car - or even worse, a bus.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    edited August 2024

    It does contradict it.

    A lot of arguments being made still rely upon old data. Most claims made by "road safety campaigners" who want speed limits cut use obsolete data from the 1970s or 1990s to back up their claims . . . because the data today does not.

    Pedestrian casualty rates have collapsed in recent decades: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2022/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2022

    In 2004 there were 53.6 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.
    In 2022 there were 26.5 pedestrian casualties per billion miles walked on average.

    Pedestrians, not drivers, are twice as safe as they were previously.
    Because they've had to retreat from the world.

    A small example: the reduction in child roaming much discussed a few weeks back.

    Cars and aggressive drivers are a major reason for that.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,342
    edited August 2024
    Cookie said:

    This is interesting. Surprising that for the older age groups live TV is still much more prevalent than recorded TV (which I assume includes things like iplayer and More4). Possibly boosted by live sport?
    It’s from OFCOMs Media Nations 2024 report. Start with pages 6 onwards. Page 11 is also interesting.

    And I think iPlayer comes under ‘BVoD’.

    I suspect the rates of live viewing for the older groups is just a continuation of the ‘if someones in the lounge then the tv goes on’ mode of passive playback that felt almost universal before video on demand and doomscrolling.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,766
    MaxPB said:

    The shareholders failed in their due diligence in that case. The taxpayer/bill payer shouldn't pay for that failure and the regulator needs to be stern here and tell them to get fucked.

    It's time to let it go bankrupt along with all of the other water companies, have the bondholders take a hefty haircut and let them either take it over or sell the assets to the state for a nominal amount on the basis that the state takes on the remaining liability ~ 30-40% of what it is currently.

    Water is one part of our infrastructure that should never have been privatised and Labour have an opportunity to bring it all back under state ownership over the next 5 years by working with the regulator to wipe out the shareholders.
    Yes , but this is New New Labour, theyll be quite happy with getting rich by being filthy as Mandy told them.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,359
    Cookie said:

    No it doesn't. Your point about cars being safer is about their ability to quickly decelerate. But TSE's point remains true - if you get hit at 20mph in a heavy car you will be worse off than if you get hit at 30mph in a light one. That's just physics.
    Physics requires exact numbers. It depends on "heavy" versus "light". The damage depends on kinetic energy, which equals one half of the mass times the velocity squared.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    Interest rates soon.

    There has been some expectation of a cut but will it happen this time given that the Bank will be aware that Rachel's MASSIVE public sector pay rises will provide a MASSIVE boost to inflation

    I project a 5-4 vote to keep rates at 5.25%

    Yes, I'm expecting a narrow vote to hold, they'll be factoring in the 5.5% pay settlement boosting demand over the coming year. It's 3.5% above inflation, that's not going to go unnoticed.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,171
    edited August 2024
    rcs1000 said:

    The word "could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
    Not really. Where the USA leads, we are likely to follow if we do not design out the unacceptable risks they tolerate first. One example of a risk we (or rather the EU iirc) *did* design out was the Tesla Cybertruck. We need to address for example tax breaks for crewcab pick ups which the last Govt designed back in last spring, which adds a risk to all our streets.

    I don't have the time to dig into the specific stats this morning, and it's a question that can't be elucidated by totals since the pedestrian subcategory gets averaged out.

    Blatantly, there are significant numbers of pedestrians killed in avoidable collisions, and the trend to heavier and larger vehicles makes consequences of collisions more serious. These can, and should, be addressed.

    Have a good day.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,519

    That last sentence is why the Republicans have a problem. Haley may be non-MAGA, and that may count as centrist these days, but it's a rum sort of centrism.

    (See Sunak for a milder version of the same effect.)

    Assuming that the Republicans can avoid putting up Trump up again in 2028 (even if he's in an orange jumpsuit or six feet under), presumably the temptation will be to go for MAGA without Trump. But as Vance is showing, MAGA needs Trump to work, because MAGA is Trump.
    In US terms though Haley was probably the most centrist candidate running this year, even more centrist than Biden.

    Apart from Hunt, Sunak was also the most centrist Tory candidate running in 2022 here.

    If Trump wins this year then Vance will be heir apparent to carry the MAGA torch as his VP, which is likely why he picked him, even though it is very much a Trump led group ideologically Vance is MAGA.

    DeSantis though is more traditional conservative, more pro free trade for example than MAGA are and if Trump and Vance are defeated he is likely favourite for 2028 GOP nominee. Do not be surprised if DeSantis and Haley are both secretly rooting for Harris to win!
  • Carnyx said:

    Because they've had to retreat from the world.

    A small example: the reduction in child roaming much discussed a few weeks back.

    Cars and aggressive drivers are a major reason for that.
    The facts show the polar opposite is the case, pedestrian mileage has increased as pedestrian fatalities have fallen.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,860

    The owners can argue what they like.

    The regulator should say "no". The shareholders/bondholders made their bed and they can lie in it.
    That's a very good example of begging the question.

    You're starting from a position that privatisation of a monopoly is a good thing, and all that's required is a competent regulator to replace the market function.
    But you have presented no argument at all for how we might ensure a competent regulator.

    Clearly a private infrastructure company will require quite a large amount of borrowing, just to finance its long terms investments in infrastructure. The problem is that issuing debt against the predictable cashflows of a monopoly utility is also an excellent, and much used tool to extract cash from the corporate entity.
    The events of the last three and a half decades suggest that government has no idea how to design a reliable regulatory process which prevents self interested private owners from wrecking the financial structure of privately owned companies for their own benefit.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,025
    Cookie said:

    No it doesn't. Your point about cars being safer is about their ability to quickly decelerate. But TSE's point remains true - if you get hit at 20mph in a heavy car you will be worse off than if you get hit at 30mph in a light one. That's just physics.
    Hang on.

    If it was a square block running into a square block dead on, then that might well be true.

    But the energy is not all dissipated in that way. In particular, a pedestrian is (typically) thrown up and onto the car. 30mph crashes are incredibly dangerous compared to 20mph one because you don't have time to get thrown upwards and the damage to your lower body - including severing of the spinal column - is extreme.

    So, I suspect that @BartholomewRoberts is correct here.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716
    MattW said:

    There's also a lot of stuff about heavier vehicles hitting the torso or the head, rather than the legs, so causing more serious injuries - in addition to poorer visibility, less stability etc, and that a heavy vehicle vs a smaller vehicle has greater consequences.

    For peds, compare a big crew cab pick up, currently with tax breaks that were reintroduced by Ministers in the spring for electoral reasons after the HMRC were proposing to remove them, with the 4x4 Subaru estate or similar many had 2 decades ago.
    Right but this stuff is strictly speaking about the shape, not the weight, right? Like, if you took the same Subaru Forester and made it heavier (for example by putting a load of batteries in it) but also improved the braking so it didn't brake any slower, my understanding is that it's basically the same for the unlucky pedestrian who gets hit by it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    Interest rates soon.

    There has been some expectation of a cut but will it happen this time given that the Bank will be aware that Rachel's MASSIVE public sector pay rises will provide a MASSIVE boost to inflation

    I project a 5-4 vote to keep rates at 5.25%

    US held rates yesterday, while Japan raised theirs (albeit from 0.1% to 0.25%) as inflation proves sticky.

    https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/bank-japan-outline-bond-taper-plan-debate-rate-hike-timing-2024-07-30/

    UK looks like a hold as well, until inflation is sustained at or below the 2% target.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,692
    Cookie said:

    No it doesn't. Your point about cars being safer is about their ability to quickly decelerate. But TSE's point remains true - if you get hit at 20mph in a heavy car you will be worse off than if you get hit at 30mph in a light one. That's just physics.
    Anyway - just spotted the claim in the nested comments that insurance claims are down by 20%. Is that number of claims or by value? If the latter, that's highly significant, because that's an excellent proxy for monetising the benefits of the scheme. We're halfway to a really good cost-benefit analysis!
    I trust the insurance companies are passing on these savings to drivers who happen to live in Wales?
    Seriously, if they were, you'd get a rather more accurate way of judging whether you supported the scheme - would you rather drive at Drakeford-speed if by doing so you saved £100 a year?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,860
    MaxPB said:

    The shareholders failed in their due diligence in that case. The taxpayer/bill payer shouldn't pay for that failure and the regulator needs to be stern here and tell them to get fucked.

    It's time to let it go bankrupt along with all of the other water companies, have the bondholders take a hefty haircut and let them either take it over or sell the assets to the state for a nominal amount on the basis that the state takes on the remaining liability ~ 30-40% of what it is currently.

    Water is one part of our infrastructure that should never have been privatised and Labour have an opportunity to bring it all back under state ownership over the next 5 years by working with the regulator to wipe out the shareholders.
    Agreed.
    But I don't know if they have the bottle.
  • Nigelb said:

    That's a very good example of begging the question.

    You're starting from a position that privatisation of a monopoly is a good thing, and all that's required is a competent regulator to replace the market function.
    But you have presented no argument at all for how we might ensure a competent regulator.

    Clearly a private infrastructure company will require quite a large amount of borrowing, just to finance its long terms investments in infrastructure. The problem is that issuing debt against the predictable cashflows of a monopoly utility is also an excellent, and much used tool to extract cash from the corporate entity.
    The events of the last three and a half decades suggest that government has no idea how to design a reliable regulatory process which prevents self interested private owners from wrecking the financial structure of privately owned companies for their own benefit.
    No, I'm doing the opposite, I'm saying the market function should be allowed to do its job.

    If the business fails it should go bankrupt. That's the market working as intended - bad firms go bust.

    Privatise the gains also means privatise the losses.

    If the firms have overleveraged themselves, then they've failed, and should be allowed to fail. Their loss, not the taxpayers.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,766
    Nigelb said:

    That's a very good example of begging the question.

    You're starting from a position that privatisation of a monopoly is a good thing, and all that's required is a competent regulator to replace the market function.
    But you have presented no argument at all for how we might ensure a competent regulator.

    Clearly a private infrastructure company will require quite a large amount of borrowing, just to finance its long terms investments in infrastructure. The problem is that issuing debt against the predictable cashflows of a monopoly utility is also an excellent, and much used tool to extract cash from the corporate entity.
    The events of the last three and a half decades suggest that government has no idea how to design a reliable regulatory process which prevents self interested private owners from wrecking the financial structure of privately owned companies for their own benefit.
    They could start by using a bit of corporate governance, Prosecute the directors and ban them from holding office. I find that tends to concentrate minds.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,860
    rcs1000 said:

    Hang on.

    If it was a square block running into a square block dead on, then that might well be true.

    But the energy is not all dissipated in that way. In particular, a pedestrian is (typically) thrown up and onto the car. 30mph crashes are incredibly dangerous compared to 20mph one because you don't have time to get thrown upwards and the damage to your lower body - including severing of the spinal column - is extreme.

    So, I suspect that @BartholomewRoberts is correct here.
    Like everything else, it's complicated.
    But one explanation for the US figures is that getting hit by a tall SUV is a bit like colliding with a square block dead on - and is much more likely to result in a severe head injury.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    They could start by using a bit of corporate governance, Prosecute the directors and ban them from holding office. I find that tends to concentrate minds.
    But they've done nothing illegal, just scummy. Being a scumbag isn't against the law.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,385
    edited August 2024
    HYUFD said:

    That isn't really true, 38% of UK voters voted Tory or Reform on 4th July, I would guess less than 38% of PBers did.

    This site is largely liberal centrist and always has been, I would expect more PBers than the UK average vote LD in particular
    I would largely agree with that. The only bit I may not agree with is 'always has been' as there has been an ebb and flow over time I think.

    Specifically my gut feeling is Reform is definitely under represented. It feels like there are a lot of ex-Tories who are now Lab or LD or disenfranchised, but would like to go home to the Tories if they re-establish themselves. The LDs feel over represented, probably helped by the reference in my previous sentence. Labour being high in the polls are possibly not over represented.

    But by and large, although there are a significant number of posters from the right, they do seem to be in a definite minority currently.
  • Smart51Smart51 Posts: 67

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Eagles, it's wrong to say Saudi Arabia are to build 11 stadiums. It's 11 stadia. And I'll believe the 'Neom' stadium when I see it.

    It is stadia if you believe that stadium is still a Latin loan word. It is stadiums if you believe stadium has been adopted as an English word. The grammatical rule is that you conjugate according to the language the word belongs to. Should the word belong to two languages, conjugate according to the one you're speaking.
  • Nigelb said:

    Like everything else, it's complicated.
    But one explanation for the US figures is that getting hit by a tall SUV is a bit like colliding with a square block dead on - and is much more likely to result in a severe head injury.
    Indeed and British "SUVs" are nothing like American ones.

    American ones are more like what we call trucks in this country. And I would not want to be hit by a bus or a truck.
  • Did he pick up any presidential tips from Bill Clinton ?
    Epstein's friends is a story that seems to have died, presumably because the people pursuing it found no smoking gun on the other side, or too many photos on their side.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,384
    Morning all :)

    First thought for this morning - back around 2008, Allister Heath, while he was still Editor of City AM and before he went mad, wrote a number of intelligent pieces arguing for every company over a certain size to be legally required to have a "will" to explain what should happen in the event of bankruptcy/insolvency.

    This would be particularly pertinent for large companies whose sudden collapse leaves everyone from staff to shareholders wondering what's going to happen next. As they always said in a place where I once worked, hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

    Appointed administratoes would then have a blueprint of instructions as to hoe to resolve the affairs of the company.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,071
    MaxPB said:

    Yes, I'm expecting a narrow vote to hold, they'll be factoring in the 5.5% pay settlement boosting demand over the coming year. It's 3.5% above inflation, that's not going to go unnoticed.
    OTOH Reeves has clearly indicated she'll raise taxes in her fiscal statement which should throttle demand.

    The 3 external members (Mann, Greene, Haskel) all hate life so will vote to hold;

    Dinghra and Ramsden will vote to cut.

    I think Broadbent will do whatever Bailey does, so it comes down to Bailey persuading one of Pill and/or Breeden.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,821
    DougSeal said:

    WilliamGlenn in re Jan 6 and Leon in re Rwanda to pluck two out of the air.
    Thanks. I shall keep an eye out for their reasoned arguments I have overlooked; I would quite like to know what they are. Liberals (small 'l') like me need to be better at evaluating arguments they don't care much for, but sometimes it is tough to discern what the arguments are and the reasoning is.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,951
    Smart51 said:

    It is stadia if you believe that stadium is still a Latin loan word. It is stadiums if you believe stadium has been adopted as an English word. The grammatical rule is that you conjugate according to the language the word belongs to. Should the word belong to two languages, conjugate according to the one you're speaking.
    'decline'?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    rcs1000 said:

    Hang on.

    If it was a square block running into a square block dead on, then that might well be true.

    But the energy is not all dissipated in that way. In particular, a pedestrian is (typically) thrown up and onto the car. 30mph crashes are incredibly dangerous compared to 20mph one because you don't have time to get thrown upwards and the damage to your lower body - including severing of the spinal column - is extreme.

    So, I suspect that @BartholomewRoberts is correct here.
    The construction of the car is more important than the mass. A modern car (a saloon car, not what the Americans call a light truck) will deform extensively in the bumper and bonnet when involved in a pedestrian impact - whereas an older one is designed much more for car-car collisions, and the pedestrian has his legs broken by the metal bumper and his head broken by the top of the engine underneath the bonnet.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,500
    Pulpstar said:

    OTOH Reeves has clearly indicated she'll raise taxes in her fiscal statement which should throttle demand.

    The 3 external members (Mann, Greene, Haskel) all hate life so will vote to hold;

    Dinghra and Ramsden will vote to cut.

    I think Broadbent will do whatever Bailey does, so it comes down to Bailey persuading one of Pill and/or Breeden.
    Also the Fed held - so why buck the trend this month...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,766
    edited August 2024
    MaxPB said:

    But they've done nothing illegal, just scummy. Being a scumbag isn't against the law.
    Of course they have, the pollution alone should be enough to drag them through a court as its a danger to public health. And any half decent lawyer could make a case for recklessly endangering the company with unsustainable debt levels.

    Bur set that aside, it will be the knowledge that they COULD be dragged off to court and go to jail that will change their behaviour.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,821
    Smart51 said:

    It is stadia if you believe that stadium is still a Latin loan word. It is stadiums if you believe stadium has been adopted as an English word. The grammatical rule is that you conjugate according to the language the word belongs to. Should the word belong to two languages, conjugate according to the one you're speaking.
    Grammatical rules derive from use not the other way round. The complexity of them (take ancient Greek verb systems as a memorable example for those who have had to study them) is a miraculous example of how fantastical and arcane complexity can arise from the use of people who had no idea that this was happening.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,860
    MaxPB said:

    But they've done nothing illegal, just scummy. Being a scumbag isn't against the law.
    It's quite possible that Macquarie were less than honest with the regulator if you look back a couple of decades. But good luck pursuing that.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,651
    HYUFD said:

    OK, produce the evidence that over 38% of posters on here voted Tory or Reform? I suspect the percentage who voted Reform in particular is well below the 14% of UK voters overall who voted Reform
    You made the assertion as to percentages. The burden is on you.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,273
    Sandpit said:

    US held rates yesterday, while Japan raised theirs (albeit from 0.1% to 0.25%) as inflation proves sticky.

    https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/bank-japan-outline-bond-taper-plan-debate-rate-hike-timing-2024-07-30/

    UK looks like a hold as well, until inflation is sustained at or below the 2% target.
    Yes I expect a hold.
  • Interest rates soon.

    There has been some expectation of a cut but will it happen this time given that the Bank will be aware that Rachel's MASSIVE public sector pay rises will provide a MASSIVE boost to inflation

    I project a 5-4 vote to keep rates at 5.25%

    We have full employment, wages should be rising.

    Those who object to my desire to see house price falls normally retort that they want to see house prices stability combined with wage rises as the solution to seeing homes be more affordable . . . but then many here seem absolutely gutted with the notion of wage rises.

    I want to see the government do less and we should have fewer people working for the state (and I could list a number of functions I'd cut and let people go from) but those who are working should be paid a decent salary for their work. And if we're at full employment, then wages need to go up until we reach an equilibrium that means that we don't have major vacancies anymore.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,171
    Carnyx said:

    Well, NuLab was responsible for the 2003 Scottish legislation, at least in being the major component of the governing coalition, though one would need to do some deep diving to be sure how far the LDs, their partner, drove or hindered the legislation (I suspect the former, if anything). But of course the original legal background was different, even if the landowners tried to argue that that should mean no presumption of legal access at all (ie no rights of way system).
    AIUI (and this may be some way off) there are perhaps 3 political traditions in support of countryside access:

    1 - Labour / working class.
    2 - Liberal radicals.
    3 - Paternalistic Tories eg consider some founders of the National Trust or industrialists, although there were also aristocratic socialists such as Octavia Hill.

    I think we have shifted back to 1 and partly 2 being in the ascendant as underlying values, rather than having a tinge of 3 in there somewhere.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,384
    Second thought of the day - consider it a BOGOF for the first day of the new month.

    I've been interested to read the Police citing disinformation as a cause for some of the disturbances coming off the Southport murders. One example - there was a video showing a couple of groups of young men in Southen fighting at one end of the promenade with machetes and that inevitably went viral and caused all sort of comment.

    Youngsters fighting in Southend is hardly news - it's been going on for at least 60 years if not longer. It might be machetes now rather than switchblades or baseball bats but let's not imagine this is some new horror vested on us. The change is it is filmed in real time, uploaded onto X and within minutes is seen by hundreds if not thousands helped by a nice attention grabbling title like "Big Machete Fight in Southend" or whatever.

    The power of misinformation or disinformation has been exposed this week (if it wasn't known even back in 2011 for example when the disorder then was largely fanned if not orchestrated by a nascent Twitter). You can't put the genie back in the bottle unfortunately but as we know a growing number of people get their "news" from X or other social media how do we respond?

    Those with a functioning brain cell might want to consider the wisdom of commenting on every X posting as soon as it happens or taking half a story and making it the full story (as we've seen with the Manchester Airport business). We're not Reuters or the PA - reading something from X doesn't make it true (a wise man once said the truth is out there, perhaps, but it's becoming a lot harder to find in the jungle of disinformation).

    As an aside, we also know the impact of the combination of hot weather and easily available alcohol on some people. Somebody once spoke about personal responsibility - wither that?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    Of course they have, the pollution alone should be enough to drag them through a court as its a danger to public health. And any half decent lawyer could make a case for recklessly endangering the company with unsustainable debt levels.

    Bur set that aside, it will be the knowledge that they COULD be dragged off to court and go to jail that will change their behaviour.
    In the aviation industry, key personnel in each company have to be licenced by the regulator. So if you’re the Chief Pilot or Chief Engineer at an airline, you have specific certifications that can be and often are suspended or withdrawn in the event of a serious incident.

    Regulated industries should do the same for safety and accounting officers, so you’re never working in the industry again if your company has an accident or goes bust. #CancelNu10k
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,171
    Sandpit said:

    The construction of the car is more important than the mass. A modern car (a saloon car, not what the Americans call a light truck) will deform extensively in the bumper and bonnet when involved in a pedestrian impact - whereas an older one is designed much more for car-car collisions, and the pedestrian has his legs broken by the metal bumper and his head broken by the top of the engine underneath the bonnet.
    As an aside on "Light Trucks" ie Tonka Tanks, they are simply exempt from many of the safety regs that apply to cars in the USA. That's been a scandal for a very long time, and manufacturers have used their influence to prevent suitable regulations being applied.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,071
    edited August 2024
    eek said:

    Also the Fed held - so why buck the trend this month...
    Broadbent and Bailey are very slightly more dovish than Ramsden despite his recent rate cut vote.

    Average Deviation from actual:

    0.18750% Greene (8 votes)
    0.11842% Mann (23 votes)
    0.02778% Haskel (49 votes)
    0.00263% Ramsden (57 votes)
    0.00000% Bailey (36 votes)
    0.00000% Breeden (6 votes)
    0.00000% Broadbent (128 votes)
    0.00000% Pill (23 votes)
    -0.25000% Dinghra (15 votes)

    Hawk to Dove
  • MattW said:

    As an aside on "Light Trucks" ie Tonka Tanks, they are simply exempt from many of the safety regs that apply to cars in the USA. That's been a scandal for a very long time, and manufacturers have used their influence to prevent suitable regulations being applied.
    Indeed, this is something you and I can completely agree on. You are 100% correct.

    This is something I would not want to see US rules introduced on, and they're not happening here.

    Any use of US data instead instead of UK data is showing dishonesty or a lack of comprehension on this by the person doing so.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    MattW said:

    As an aside on "Light Trucks" ie Tonka Tanks, they are simply exempt from many of the safety regs that apply to cars in the USA. That's been a scandal for a very long time, and manufacturers have used their influence to prevent suitable regulations being applied.
    Yes, they’re commercial vehicles but often purchased by individuals, and subject to very different safety standards to cars - which makes them often cheaper than equivalent cars, driving up demand for them even more.

    The single best selling vehicle in the US is the Ford F150, and has been for decades.

    The new electric Hummer and Tesla trucks are so heavy you can’t drive them on a car licence in the UK, they’re over 3.5t plated max weight.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,435

    Them and many many others.

    The oil price is rocketing with the latest middle east goings on. You can forget interest rate cuts any time soon.

    In fact with the Tory inflationary actions like double digit minimum wage rises and Ldbour inflationary actions like doctors 22% pensionsble pay rises, the next interest rate change may well be up.

    The impact of rising oil prices on real inflation would be deflationary - a rising oil price would not call for the raising of interest rates, it would call for a fall in interest rates to counteract the risk of recession.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    Dura_Ace said:

    Pluralisation is an inflection not conjugation. Conjugation is the modification of a verb to indicate tense, mood and person. Inflection is the modification of any word, not just a verb, to indicate grammatical function; in this case plurality.
    As controversial as pineapple on pizza, and topical this week - are there any circumstances under which the word ‘medal’ can properly be used as a verb?
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 882

    Indeed, this is something you and I can completely agree on. You are 100% correct.

    This is something I would not want to see US rules introduced on, and they're not happening here.

    Any use of US data instead instead of UK data is showing dishonesty or a lack of comprehension on this by the person doing so.
    The popularity of SUVs vs cars is safety problem though, cars having lower bonnets, the pedestrian was more likely to be go over the bonnet than under it.
    Stats demonstrate that 20mph is safer than 30mph, no need to go into any physics and the relevance of the theoretical stopping distance is considerably reduced versus reckless or distracted driving, as demonstrated by the vehicular war on stationary objects such as lamposts.
  • The impact of rising oil prices on real inflation would be deflationary - a rising oil price would not call for the raising of interest rates, it would call for a fall in interest rates to counteract the risk of recession.

    That's incredibly ignorant and I suggest you look at all economic data from the 1970s onwards especially.

    If prices are rising that is inflation by definition. Yes it may be recessionary, but recessions can come with inflation.
  • Dopermean said:

    The popularity of SUVs vs cars is safety problem though, cars having lower bonnets, the pedestrian was more likely to be go over the bonnet than under it.
    Stats demonstrate that 20mph is safer than 30mph, no need to go into any physics and the relevance of the theoretical stopping distance is considerably reduced versus reckless or distracted driving, as demonstrated by the vehicular war on stationary objects such as lamposts.
    UK SUVs are cars. They are not American

    Look at the Nissan Qashqai or the Kia Sportage, they are popular UK SUVs and they have all the safety features of modern cars, including modern, safer bonnets.

    Contrast with the Ford F150 which to the best of my knowledge is not sold in this country.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    The impact of rising oil prices on real inflation would be deflationary - a rising oil price would not call for the raising of interest rates, it would call for a fall in interest rates to counteract the risk of recession.

    The BoE are tasked only with looking at inflation, not any other economic factors. As we saw two years ago, a sharp spike in the oil price quickly feeds through to the price of everything going up, and rates need to rise to dampen demand.

    Aggravating that is that the price elasticity of fuel is low, demand doesn’t change much with price because those goods still need to be delivered and those people still need to get to work. The price needs to rise considerably before demand falls, fuelling inflation even more.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,860

    No, I'm doing the opposite, I'm saying the market function should be allowed to do its job.

    If the business fails it should go bankrupt. That's the market working as intended - bad firms go bust.

    Privatise the gains also means privatise the losses.

    If the firms have overleveraged themselves, then they've failed, and should be allowed to fail. Their loss, not the taxpayers.
    There is no market function for most of the operations of a monopoly utility.
    Its customers can't choose not to use its services, and there is no competitor.
  • Nigelb said:

    There is no market function for most of the operations of a monopoly utility.
    Its customers can't choose not to use its services, and there is no competitor.
    There is a market function for the operations of a regulated monopoly utility.

    If it emits lots of pollution then it pays lots of fines, so loses money.

    If it cuts pollution, it cuts fines, so makes money.

    Hence why rivers and beaches improved dramatically post-privatisation.

    Now possibly the regulator needs more teeth, but there's absolutely a function there.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,860
    Dura_Ace said:

    Pluralisation is an inflection not conjugation. Conjugation is the modification of a verb to indicate tense, mood and person. Inflection is the modification of any word, not just a verb, to indicate grammatical function; in this case plurality.
    Also usage trumps grammatical 'rules'.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    UK SUVs are cars. They are not American

    Look at the Nissan Qashqai or the Kia Sportage, they are popular UK SUVs and they have all the safety features of modern cars, including modern, safer bonnets.

    Contrast with the Ford F150 which to the best of my knowledge is not sold in this country.
    The Ford Ranger, a smaller truck built to car standards, is sold in the UK and Europe, but not the F-series.

    If you see an F-series it will be a one-off import, left hand drive, and usually a work truck for something specific like towing heavy trailers. Plus maybe a few hanging around outside football club training grounds.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,766
    edited August 2024
    MaxPB said:

    Maybe, but I also think this is an opportunity for the government to lay down new rules of engagement to shareholders and more importantly bond investors that UK utilities aren't one way bet so when the financial engineers try and load up the next company with endless debt to pay dividends the bondholders had better be sure about buying in. Just that alone will prevent future iterations of what's happened in the water industry.
    We could start by saying they must be responsible corporations and pay Corporation Tax on shore.
  • Sandpit said:

    The Ford Ranger, a smaller truck built to car standards, is sold in the UK and Europe, but not the F-series.

    If you see an F-series it will be a one-off import, left hand drive, and usually a work truck for something specific like towing heavy trailers. Plus maybe a few hanging around outside football club training grounds.
    I go for simple people carriers.

    I think my next vehicle will be a G-Wagen.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    Sandpit said:

    As controversial as pineapple on pizza, and topical this week - are there any circumstances under which the word ‘medal’ can properly be used as a verb?
    Bemedalled is a common adjectival participle (?) used to describe e.g. brown jobs or Admirals on formal occasions. Okay, that's really a derivative of 'bemedal' but OED does have 'medal' as a transitive verb - e.g. a Fenland Tech magazine in 1890

    "In that year it was decided that both crews should be medalled, the winners with silver, the losers with bronze."
    Granta 6 December

    But more recent usages up to the present day.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,860
    eek said:


    Well they don't have the cash to throw at share / bond holders so it's be ruthless or create a very simple of attack lines for the opposition at the next election.

    Also Canadian Teachers don't have votes in the UK...
    I agree entirely with both you and Max on this.
    Let the shareholders go bust, and screw the bondholders. But it needs to be done in a manner which least spooks bond markets.
  • Nigelb said:

    I agree entirely with both you and Max on this.
    Let the shareholders go bust, and screw the bondholders. But it needs to be done in a manner which least spooks bond markets.
    Giving the bond markets a bit of a spook is no bad thing.

    Let them know they need to do their due diligence.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    edited August 2024

    I go for simple people carriers.

    I think my next vehicle will be a G-Wagen.
    Ha, you’re turning into an old footballer getting one of those in the UK!

    The new G is actually very nice to drive, much more of a car than the terrible-handling-but-cool-looking truck that was the previous model. Very popular in my neck of the woods.

    That said, the GLS is a better vehicle in almost every way.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,860
    Well look at that. Andriy Derkach, the Ukrainian ex-MP who helped Trump and Giuliani pressure Ukraine to smear Biden, and was sanctioned by the US for being “an active Russian agent” working to interfere with the 2020 election — all of which which he denied being/doing — has surfaced in Russia with Russian citizenship and is now seeking political office.
    https://x.com/ChristopherJM/status/1818914491830047163
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    edited August 2024
    Carnyx said:

    Bemedalled is a common adjectival participle (?) used to describe e.g. brown jobs or Admirals on formal occasions. Okay, that's really a derivative of 'bemedal' but OED does have 'medal' as a transitive verb - e.g. a Fenland Tech magazine in 1890

    "In that year it was decided that both crews should be medalled, the winners with silver, the losers with bronze."
    Granta 6 December

    But more recent usages up to the present day.
    Grr. Listening to the Olympics coverage it annoys the hell out of me! It only started a few years ago, perhaps in Beijing ‘08, when the BBC presenters suddenly started talking about medalling, and it’s grated ever since.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,889
    ...

    UK SUVs are cars. They are not American

    Look at the Nissan Qashqai or the Kia Sportage, they are popular UK SUVs and they have all the safety features of modern cars, including modern, safer bonnets.

    Contrast with the Ford F150 which to the best of my knowledge is not sold in this country.
    A Full Fat Range Rover or Defender, TSE's G Wagen or a Grenadier could do you some hefty damage and what about a Ford Ranger truck? A friend of my son, dicking about on Cardiff Road in Barry some years ago was killed by a Skoda Octavia taxi at 30mph. By today's standards a Skoda Octavia is a relatively small car. The road is now a 20. He'd have been injured at 20, but would probably have survived.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-39734797.amp
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    Nigelb said:

    I agree entirely with both you and Max on this.
    Let the shareholders go bust, and screw the bondholders. But it needs to be done in a manner which least spooks bond markets.
    Spooking the bond markets for UK utilities would probably be a net benefit as companies will be forced to outline more detailed investment plans and how they intend to service/redeem the bonds from the increased cashflow generated by the investment. Management won't be able to write paper and pay out dividends any more which would be a good result for the UK economy.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,826
    a
    Nigelb said:

    I agree entirely with both you and Max on this.
    Let the shareholders go bust, and screw the bondholders. But it needs to be done in a manner which least spooks bond markets.
    Someone mentioned upthread the supply chain that depends on Thames Water.

    If Thames Water goes bust, the shareholders and bond holders get wiped out (or as much as required).

    The "lightened" business, shorn of much of it's debt would be extremely profitable - and would be able to support temporarily higher prices from the suppliers without having to raise bills.

    You'd want good managers to manage the supplier prices back down after the initial bump, though.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    a

    Someone mentioned upthread the supply chain that depends on Thames Water.

    If Thames Water goes bust, the shareholders and bond holders get wiped out (or as much as required).

    The "lightened" business, shorn of much of it's debt would be extremely profitable - and would be able to support temporarily higher prices from the suppliers without having to raise bills.

    You'd want good managers to manage the supplier prices back down after the initial bump, though.
    No, you'd want good managers to start insourcing those functions over time and building up those divisions again.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,226

    <
    Contrast with the Ford F150 which to the best of my knowledge is not sold in this country.

    You can get them, just not through the Ford dealer network and LHD only.

    Ford should import them, then do warrantied RHD conversions like they do for Australia/NZ. They would sell well and have excellent margins.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,394
    Good morning one and all!
    Off topic I know but I've just had a look at my junk mail and there's a letter there from our local MP Priti Patel. Sorry Dame Priti Patel.
    She reports on, among other things, her objections to the Labour Governments proposal to release prisoners early.
    I thought it was originally proposed by Rishi Sunak's Conservative Government!
  • Sandpit said:

    Ha, you’re turning into an old footballer getting one of those in the UK!

    The new G is actually very nice to drive, much more of a car than the terrible-handling-but-cool-looking truck that was the previous model. Very popular in my neck of the woods.

    That said, the GLS is a better vehicle in almost every way.
    Best vehicle I’ve ever hard was the Porsche Cayenne Turbo.

    That was basically a sports cars on a 4x4 floor plan.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,123

    It is very bad tempered on here this morning.

    I remember how I could predict imminent thunderstorms at middle school by the amount of lunchtime playground fights that broke out.

    Like racist rioting increases the more the temperature goes above 30C?
This discussion has been closed.