Sky News came to Ireland in an attempt to question Nicola Sturgeon about claims she shut down scrutiny of SNP finances at the same time her ex-husband Peter Murrell stole £400k from party. She entered the kitchen to avoid questions with security pushing me away.
I hope the kitchen was well stocked with 7 kettles and 3 coffee machines so she felt at home.
Sky could spend one tenth of the effort questioning Nigel Farage about his £5 million bribe. Yes I understand bribery is a different thing from theft but (a) he actually did it unlike Sturgeon; (b) he is still party leader liable to become Prime Minister; and (c) it's a lot more money.
I know I sound like a broken record on this, but what "Bribe"? As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected.
To bribe someone requires them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do in return for the cash. Giving a political donation merely indicates that donor is probably aligned with the policy aims of the person they are hoping will be elected.
The only notable things about this particular donation are a) that it's large by UK standards, and b) that Farage possibly played fast and loose with the rules around declaring it.
If we want to talk about dirty political donations, and organisation which do get to influence policy in return for hard cash, can I interest anyone in the self serving relationship between a number of large trade unions and the Labour Party? Or is it only dirty cash when it's large donations to causes with which we disagree?
Sorry to be blunt, but what utter tosh.
Farage's gift is now under investigation for its "gift" status and whether Farage should have declared it once in the HoC. We await the result.
Nathan Gill took money from Russia in order to promote Russia. A distinct and illegal conflict of interest. Farage took money from a Crypto billionaire and has spoken favourably about Crypto. At the very least the media chasing down Nicola Sturgeon should be having a look. But it's Farage, so we can give him a free pass.
Labour took millions from an eco energy giant. They promote eco energy and block new oil and gas. Where’s the difference ?
I saw it (I'm visiting relatives). The AI Churchill, Gandhi, Kahlo and Pankhurst were a 30-second teaser at the beginning of the program just after the titles, not part of it. The program had a round table of five(?) people as normal.
It wasn't bad: in fact considerably better than a normal episode.
Sky News came to Ireland in an attempt to question Nicola Sturgeon about claims she shut down scrutiny of SNP finances at the same time her ex-husband Peter Murrell stole £400k from party. She entered the kitchen to avoid questions with security pushing me away.
I hope the kitchen was well stocked with 7 kettles and 3 coffee machines so she felt at home.
Sky could spend one tenth of the effort questioning Nigel Farage about his £5 million bribe. Yes I understand bribery is a different thing from theft but (a) he actually did it unlike Sturgeon; (b) he is still party leader liable to become Prime Minister; and (c) it's a lot more money.
I know I sound like a broken record on this, but what "Bribe"? As far as I can see, he’s has a shed load of money not to *change* something, but in the hopes that he will be elected, and then do what he was always going to do once elected.
To bribe someone requires them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do in return for the cash. Giving a political donation merely indicates that donor is probably aligned with the policy aims of the person they are hoping will be elected.
The only notable things about this particular donation are a) that it's large by UK standards, and b) that Farage possibly played fast and loose with the rules around declaring it.
If we want to talk about dirty political donations, and organisation which do get to influence policy in return for hard cash, can I interest anyone in the self serving relationship between a number of large trade unions and the Labour Party? Or is it only dirty cash when it's large donations to causes with which we disagree?
Sorry to be blunt, but what utter tosh.
Farage's gift is now under investigation for its "gift" status and whether Farage should have declared it once in the HoC. We await the result.
Nathan Gill took money from Russia in order to promote Russia. A distinct and illegal conflict of interest. Farage took money from a Crypto billionaire and has spoken favourably about Crypto. At the very least the media chasing down Nicola Sturgeon should be having a look. But it's Farage, so we can give him a free pass.
Labour took millions from an eco energy giant. They promote eco energy and block new oil and gas. Where’s the difference ?
They declared it.
Not the point I’m arguing
The issue I was responding to was one where the comment implied the donation bought policy influence. So did it with the eco bung.
So who has made more U turns - Burnham or Jenrick ?
Burnham's are swerves not U-turns. He's still going in the same direction.
Leftwards or rightwards?
I can't tell any more.
Not leftward or rightward but sensible: This is the clear direction.
* Introduce PR (majority of public in favour) * Remove red lines on EU single market and customs union (majority of public in favour) * Take water companies into public ownership (big majority of public in favour even if it might seem left wing) * Enable local authorities to build more social housing (majority of public in favour)
I’m pretty sure Burnham is not calling to take these companies into public ownership?
Are you? What makes you so sure? He took the buses in Manchester into public ownership and it has been a great success.
In this interview, Burnham says he thinks there is case for public ownership of Thames Water.
I thought he rowed back on this because of the costs involved.
iirc Burnham didn't take the buses back into public ownership. He put them under public control
Happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.
I think you are right. It is a franchise model similar to Transport for London I think. TFL works well. If it were applied to Thames Water, the government would set the prices, determine investments etc but outsource the actual operations for a fixed fee to one or more suppliers. I can see that working. It works in the NHS where most GP practices are outsourced and many hospital services.
I think it's a good model.
EDIT: It looks as if Horse and I are in agreement on this.
I think the distinction is whether the supervisory body believes that strong regulation is necessary to the extent to maintain support for it.
There is an analogy with corporate outsourcing, and the contrast between just letting it go, or retaining enough in house expertise such that the outsourcing supplier is kept on their toes.
Keeping it in house would be vital to retain government expertise - or you're just recreating a similar situation to the current one with the regulator.
You can use contractors, of course, but a "franchise" is just asking for problems.
The Post Office suggests that merely being owned by the government doesn’t automatically fix the problem
Nor do the numerous NHS scandals.
What is required is active regulation. And management whose first concern is not (im)plausible deniability.
As I said, government ownership isn't a panacea. But if government can't run a water company then it's hard to see how it can effectively regulate either.
Public ownership of Thames might eventually also improve the regulation of the rest of the industry, by provide a route to breaking the current cosy relationship between industry and regulator ?
An on topic conversation!
When the Water companies were on state ownership, investment was regularly blocked by the Treasury and waivers for breaching regulations were given instead.
One of the reasons for privatisation was that drinking water quality rules were coming in and would require vast investment to deal with. Which actually happened.
Whilst loading the companies with debt to pay dividends. What we are seeking is a system which falls between these two extremes. One in which promised investment is forthcoming whilst providing a reasonable return to shareholders which doesn't leave the company effectively bankrupt and the billpayer or taxpayer permanently on the hook. Surely that isn't an overly naive goal?
I'm perplexed as to why Thames Water hasn't been allowed to fall into special measures. They borrowed against the assets and future bill income, took huge dividends and have sweated the assets to a desiccated husk while gaming regulations and testing. I understand that it could make it harder for other water companies to borrow, but then if they have the same corporate behaviour as Thames then it should be hard, if not impossible, for them to borrow. Most of the current bondholders have bought in at a discount and are relying on the state to underwrite a potential substantial profit. In the current situation the state (taxpayer) is underwriting borrowing at a higher rate than the state would pay while having no effective control of the operation or sanction for underperformance. We're just being rinsed, and with effluent.
What should be done is to let them go down.
But the government should back the suppliers bills.
With a loan to reconstituted water companies. Which, since they will be relieved of their other debt, they will repay easily. A smart negotiator could get a profit out of such a loan.
How are you changing the corporate behaviour, and incentive, for them not to do exactly the same thing again?
The behaviour you affect is that of the people who lent the water companies money, and will have lost it when they go bust.
Those people will, hopefully, have their behaviour modified to only lend for investment, and not to pay out dividends, as the new water company wouldn't be able to tell them, "don't worry, your money is safe, it's not like the government is going to let a water company go bust, lol."
Comments
It wasn't bad: in fact considerably better than a normal episode.
The issue I was responding to was one where the comment implied the donation bought policy influence. So did it with the eco bung.
Those people will, hopefully, have their behaviour modified to only lend for investment, and not to pay out dividends, as the new water company wouldn't be able to tell them, "don't worry, your money is safe, it's not like the government is going to let a water company go bust, lol."