Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
It's Lammy ( just heard it on LBC) who might be out of a job by teatime.
Might as well declare war on France then for a laugh.
This is why Dave didn’t appoint me to his staff when he became Foreign Secretary.
My solution to every foreign policy issue would have been to nuke France.
In totally unsurprising news, Kemi's published letter to Burnham is demanding, rather discourteously as usual, that a Labour Prime Minister should carry out Conservative policies. Burnham will file it in the bin.
Except Andy Burnham has been speaking for some time about working with other parties.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
It's Lammy ( just heard it on LBC) who might be out of a job by teatime.
Might as well declare war on France then for a laugh.
This is why Dave didn’t appoint me to his staff when he became Foreign Office.
My solution to every foreign policy issue would have been to nuke France.
Just foreign policy issues - domestic issue requiring a minor distraction, nuke France.
After the last few days maybe we rethink and look at Argentina?
That would give Argentina a valid grievance...
However France is why Argentina isn't part of Spain, as the Peninsular war triggered the Argentinian war of Independence - so another reason to nuke France...
I wish Andy Burnham every success as Prime Minister. But it is my job to hold him to account.
Every announcement he makes should be properly funded. We cannot borrow more money and the tax burden is already too high, so the only answer is spending cuts.
I will work with him in the national interest to find savings from the benefits bill. If we reach agreement, my Conservative MPs will vote for those cuts in Parliament. That's the way to get Britain working.
That's basically Badenoch's pitch at the next election. Cuts to benefits to fund tax cuts.
What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending. What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending.
Tax cuts not welfare spending is Kemi's cry
How does she afford defence spending if she has spent welfare savings on tax cuts to the wealthy?
Efficiency savings in the MoD. You know the drill.
You could build a fair number of drones from the scrap metal from an aircraft carrier.
The yanks just need to bomb Kharg island and cut off Irans money machine. The regime cant function without money
Or alternatively cut their losses from the whole shambolic affair and gtf out of the place.
Trump is apparently unable to find a way of convincing his supporters that he's won this war when he's lost it. I thought that was his special talent?
Until the Iranians make some concession Trump can hang a victory claim onto he will keep at it. Better to continue the war than to crystallise the defeat.
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
Don’t nationalise it, wait for it to go bust and supervise the sale with the administrators.
Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.
If the government doesn’t keep stepping in, they are toast.
The comic version of the lawsuit is to claim the government has a duty to prop them up, if they go bust. They don’t.
A legal challenge is inevitable, in all cases except the government backing Thames Water. Forever.
It's will be interesting to see how it pans out, though.
Like everything else, there will be an element of negotiation in it, but here the government has by far the strongest hand, as long as they play it both forcefully and carefully. Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut.
What would be unconscionable would be for the existing shareholders to retain ownership of assets which are effectively being refinanced by the bill payers. One possible solution (which would fit with Burnham's cooperative principles) might be restructuring it under the mutual ownership of its customers, to recognise that reality.
Bankruptcy has been a thing in laws for centuries. Trying to demand protection from it is comic relief.
The political pressures not to let this happen are interesting. And worthy of study.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
It's Lammy ( just heard it on LBC) who might be out of a job by teatime.
Might as well declare war on France then for a laugh.
This is why Dave didn’t appoint me to his staff when he became Foreign Office.
My solution to every foreign policy issue would have been to nuke France.
Just foreign policy issues - domestic issue requiring a minor distraction, nuke France.
After the last few days maybe we rethink and look at Argentina?
That would give Argentina a valid grievance...
However France is why Argentina isn't part of Spain - so another reason to nuke France...
We might as well abandon all hope of the World Cup if Argentina were still part of Spain. A reason to thank the French?
The yanks just need to bomb Kharg island and cut off Irans money machine. The regime cant function without money
Or alternatively cut their losses from the whole shambolic affair and gtf out of the place.
Trump is apparently unable to find a way of convincing his supporters that he's won this war when he's lost it. I thought that was his special talent?
Until the Iranians make some concession Trump can hang a victory claim onto he will keep at it. Better to continue the war than to crystallise the defeat.
They have no incentive to make a concession. They’ve come out of it stronger than before.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
It's Lammy ( just heard it on LBC) who might be out of a job by teatime.
Might as well declare war on France then for a laugh.
This is why Dave didn’t appoint me to his staff when he became Foreign Office.
My solution to every foreign policy issue would have been to nuke France.
Just foreign policy issues - domestic issue requiring a minor distraction, nuke France.
After the last few days maybe we rethink and look at Argentina?
That would give Argentina a valid grievance...
However France is why Argentina isn't part of Spain - so another reason to nuke France...
We might as well abandon all hope of the World Cup if Argentina were still part of Spain. A reason to thank the French?
The aim is to nuke France - I'm just looking for reasons to do so...
In totally unsurprising news, Kemi's published letter to Burnham is demanding, rather discourteously as usual, that a Labour Prime Minister should carry out Conservative policies. Burnham will file it in the bin.
Except Andy Burnham has been speaking for some time about working with other parties.
Yes, but not to implement Tory policies, as Kemi is demanding in her letter to Burnham. I suspect Burnham has in mind a consensual approach to social care, for example.
The yanks just need to bomb Kharg island and cut off Irans money machine. The regime cant function without money
Or alternatively cut their losses from the whole shambolic affair and gtf out of the place.
Trump is apparently unable to find a way of convincing his supporters that he's won this war when he's lost it. I thought that was his special talent?
Until the Iranians make some concession Trump can hang a victory claim onto he will keep at it. Better to continue the war than to crystallise the defeat.
They have no incentive to make a concession. They’ve come out of it stronger than before.
The incentive is to bank their gains. But clearly the IRGC believe that there is more yet that they can win.
A great piece on Islmophobia in the Spectator, charting the decline of a once-respected institution.
The rather sad thing is that it had to be pointed out, as people really should have noticed by now. The Spectator, for all the high opinion it has of itself, is a vehicle to express the petty (and non-petty) prejudices of the right. That's not to say that articles are badly written or untrue, and some writers like the travel writers have their own idiosyncrasies instead of the set prejudice menu, but it is a magazine that likes to rend and tear. Sometimes it surprises me (I think it was Stephen Daldry who objected to somebody being jailed for Bad Tweets about Captain Tom when nobody else objected?) but when it comes to the foundation Stewart Pearson applies.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
It's Lammy ( just heard it on LBC) who might be out of a job by teatime.
Might as well declare war on France then for a laugh.
This is why Dave didn’t appoint me to his staff when he became Foreign Office.
My solution to every foreign policy issue would have been to nuke France.
Just foreign policy issues - domestic issue requiring a minor distraction, nuke France.
After the last few days maybe we rethink and look at Argentina?
That would give Argentina a valid grievance...
However France is why Argentina isn't part of Spain - so another reason to nuke France...
We might as well abandon all hope of the World Cup if Argentina were still part of Spain. A reason to thank the French?
It's actually also down to us, in part:
"After having to fight the British invasions by themselves with little direct help from Spain that at the moment was involved in the Napoleonic Wars, the seeds of independence in Argentina were starting to grow..."
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
Don’t nationalise it, wait for it to go bust and supervise the sale with the administrators.
Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.
If the government doesn’t keep stepping in, they are toast.
The comic version of the lawsuit is to claim the government has a duty to prop them up, if they go bust. They don’t.
A legal challenge is inevitable, in all cases except the government backing Thames Water. Forever.
It's will be interesting to see how it pans out, though.
Like everything else, there will be an element of negotiation in it, but here the government has by far the strongest hand, as long as they play it both forcefully and carefully. Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut.
What would be unconscionable would be for the existing shareholders to retain ownership of assets which are effectively being refinanced by the bill payers. One possible solution (which would fit with Burnham's cooperative principles) might be restructuring it under the mutual ownership of its customers, to recognise that reality.
Bankruptcy has been a thing in laws for centuries. Trying to demand protection from it is comic relief.
The political pressures not to let this happen are interesting. And worthy of study.
Indeed, no need to nationalise, just let it go bust and pick up the pieces if nobody else does.
Bondholders can get f***ed. They made a bad bet and lost.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
It's Lammy ( just heard it on LBC) who might be out of a job by teatime.
Might as well declare war on France then for a laugh.
This is why Dave didn’t appoint me to his staff when he became Foreign Office.
My solution to every foreign policy issue would have been to nuke France.
Just foreign policy issues - domestic issue requiring a minor distraction, nuke France.
After the last few days maybe we rethink and look at Argentina?
That would give Argentina a valid grievance...
However France is why Argentina isn't part of Spain - so another reason to nuke France...
We might as well abandon all hope of the World Cup if Argentina were still part of Spain. A reason to thank the French?
The aim is to nuke France - I'm just looking for reasons to do so...
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
Don’t nationalise it, wait for it to go bust and supervise the sale with the administrators.
Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.
If the government doesn’t keep stepping in, they are toast.
The comic version of the lawsuit is to claim the government has a duty to prop them up, if they go bust. They don’t.
A legal challenge is inevitable, in all cases except the government backing Thames Water. Forever.
It's will be interesting to see how it pans out, though.
Like everything else, there will be an element of negotiation in it, but here the government has by far the strongest hand, as long as they play it both forcefully and carefully. Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut.
What would be unconscionable would be for the existing shareholders to retain ownership of assets which are effectively being refinanced by the bill payers. One possible solution (which would fit with Burnham's cooperative principles) might be restructuring it under the mutual ownership of its customers, to recognise that reality.
Bankruptcy has been a thing in laws for centuries. Trying to demand protection from it is comic relief.
The political pressures not to let this happen are interesting. And worthy of study.
Agreed. This will be an early test for Burnham.
But I think the mutual outcome prediction is a pretty good call.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Chris Mason is always first with the really important news.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Hmmm, Prime Minister is kind of a serious job unlike the Mayor of a provincial town for example.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
It's Lammy ( just heard it on LBC) who might be out of a job by teatime.
Might as well declare war on France then for a laugh.
This is why Dave didn’t appoint me to his staff when he became Foreign Office.
My solution to every foreign policy issue would have been to nuke France.
Just foreign policy issues - domestic issue requiring a minor distraction, nuke France.
After the last few days maybe we rethink and look at Argentina?
That would give Argentina a valid grievance...
However France is why Argentina isn't part of Spain - so another reason to nuke France...
We might as well abandon all hope of the World Cup if Argentina were still part of Spain. A reason to thank the French?
The aim is to nuke France - I'm just looking for reasons to do so...
Only Paris, please. Not Burgundy or Bordeaux.
If we do Calais do you think we would get an improvement grant?
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Hmmm, Prime Minister is kind of a serious job unlike the Mayor of a provincial town for example.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Hmmm, Prime Minister is kind of a serious job unlike the Mayor of a provincial town for example.
Calling Manchester a “provincial town” says it all really. Utter ignorance.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
Don’t nationalise it, wait for it to go bust and supervise the sale with the administrators.
Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.
If the government doesn’t keep stepping in, they are toast.
The comic version of the lawsuit is to claim the government has a duty to prop them up, if they go bust. They don’t.
A legal challenge is inevitable, in all cases except the government backing Thames Water. Forever.
It's will be interesting to see how it pans out, though.
Like everything else, there will be an element of negotiation in it, but here the government has by far the strongest hand, as long as they play it both forcefully and carefully. Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut.
What would be unconscionable would be for the existing shareholders to retain ownership of assets which are effectively being refinanced by the bill payers. One possible solution (which would fit with Burnham's cooperative principles) might be restructuring it under the mutual ownership of its customers, to recognise that reality.
{sigh}
“Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.”
“Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut”
“while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.”
So you can’t do it without private investment? That’s how we treat it? That’s the pitch for people investing?
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Hmmm, Prime Minister is kind of a serious job unlike the Mayor of a provincial town for example.
Calling Manchester a “provincial town” says it all really. Utter ignorance.
In world terms, Manchester is a provincial town my friend.
I thought the zero on 10 Downing Street was supposed to be at an angle. It looks fairly straight behind the new Prime Minister. Maybe I need a new telly.
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
Don’t nationalise it, wait for it to go bust and supervise the sale with the administrators.
Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.
If the government doesn’t keep stepping in, they are toast.
The comic version of the lawsuit is to claim the government has a duty to prop them up, if they go bust. They don’t.
A legal challenge is inevitable, in all cases except the government backing Thames Water. Forever.
It's will be interesting to see how it pans out, though.
Like everything else, there will be an element of negotiation in it, but here the government has by far the strongest hand, as long as they play it both forcefully and carefully. Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut.
What would be unconscionable would be for the existing shareholders to retain ownership of assets which are effectively being refinanced by the bill payers. One possible solution (which would fit with Burnham's cooperative principles) might be restructuring it under the mutual ownership of its customers, to recognise that reality.
{sigh}
“Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.”
“Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut”
“while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.”
So you can’t do it without private investment? That’s how we treat it? That’s the pitch for people investing?
Yes.
Investors need to do their due diligence and all investments can go down as well as up.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Hmmm, Prime Minister is kind of a serious job unlike the Mayor of a provincial town for example.
Calling Manchester a “provincial town” says it all really. Utter ignorance.
In world terms, Manchester is a provincial town my friend.
If Burnham had just become Prime Minister of the world that might be a fair comment.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Hmmm, Prime Minister is kind of a serious job unlike the Mayor of a provincial town for example.
Calling Manchester a “provincial town” says it all really. Utter ignorance.
In world terms, Manchester is a provincial town my friend.
He's not mayor of Manchester, he's mayor of Greater Manchester.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Hmmm, Prime Minister is kind of a serious job unlike the Mayor of a provincial town for example.
Calling Manchester a “provincial town” says it all really. Utter ignorance.
In world terms, Manchester is a provincial town my friend.
Bullshit.
In world terms Manchester is a major city, on a par with the likes of Philadelphia or Brussels or San Diego.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Hmmm, Prime Minister is kind of a serious job unlike the Mayor of a provincial town for example.
Calling Manchester a “provincial town” says it all really. Utter ignorance.
In world terms, Manchester is a provincial town my friend.
Bullshit.
In world terms Manchester is a major city, on a par with the likes of Philadelphia or Brussels or San Diego.
Not really and that is part of Burnham's point that Britain is too centralised around London.
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
Don’t nationalise it, wait for it to go bust and supervise the sale with the administrators.
Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.
If the government doesn’t keep stepping in, they are toast.
The comic version of the lawsuit is to claim the government has a duty to prop them up, if they go bust. They don’t.
A legal challenge is inevitable, in all cases except the government backing Thames Water. Forever.
It's will be interesting to see how it pans out, though.
Like everything else, there will be an element of negotiation in it, but here the government has by far the strongest hand, as long as they play it both forcefully and carefully. Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut.
What would be unconscionable would be for the existing shareholders to retain ownership of assets which are effectively being refinanced by the bill payers. One possible solution (which would fit with Burnham's cooperative principles) might be restructuring it under the mutual ownership of its customers, to recognise that reality.
{sigh}
“Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.”
“Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut”
“while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.”
So you can’t do it without private investment? That’s how we treat it? That’s the pitch for people investing?
What are you on about ? The private sector ran a monopoly into the ground financially (that much of that was the responsibility of a previous private sector owner is irrelevant; investors are responsible for their own due diligence). It's not up to the customers to guarantee owners' profits and absorb any losses; the nature of capitalism is that you take a risk when you invest.
There is absolutely no reasons to give existing shareholders the benefit of a recapitalisation which will be funded almost entirely by customers and/or taxpayers, That would be corporate welfare, not free market capitalism.
An essential public utility monopoly ought never to have been privatised in the first place.
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Hmmm, Prime Minister is kind of a serious job unlike the Mayor of a provincial town for example.
Calling Manchester a “provincial town” says it all really. Utter ignorance.
In world terms, Manchester is a provincial town my friend.
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
Don’t nationalise it, wait for it to go bust and supervise the sale with the administrators.
Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.
If the government doesn’t keep stepping in, they are toast.
The comic version of the lawsuit is to claim the government has a duty to prop them up, if they go bust. They don’t.
A legal challenge is inevitable, in all cases except the government backing Thames Water. Forever.
It's will be interesting to see how it pans out, though.
Like everything else, there will be an element of negotiation in it, but here the government has by far the strongest hand, as long as they play it both forcefully and carefully. Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut.
What would be unconscionable would be for the existing shareholders to retain ownership of assets which are effectively being refinanced by the bill payers. One possible solution (which would fit with Burnham's cooperative principles) might be restructuring it under the mutual ownership of its customers, to recognise that reality.
{sigh}
“Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.”
“Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut”
“while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.”
So you can’t do it without private investment? That’s how we treat it? That’s the pitch for people investing?
Err yeah, that’s how investments work.
The value of your shares can do down as well as up. Especially if you take a huge dividend while loading the company with debt it can no longer afford to service.
Burnham's. Delivery. Has. A strange. Cadence My wife observes.
Ending rough sleeping. It was done during Covid, it is good to see there is a commitment to do it again.
"We will do better." He said. I think I would have preferred an emphasis on turning around the country being a collective effort that required the involvement of everyone. "We're all in it together," was one of the best political soundbites of our generation.
So Bunrham enters No 10, as expected lots of talk of change but mainly seems to be based on his promise of more public ownership and more state intervention. We now wait for the new Cabinet appointments
Chris Mason informs us that Burnham will "dispense with the suit and tie whenever possible". (Those might not have been the exact words but it was something very similar).
Hmmm, Prime Minister is kind of a serious job unlike the Mayor of a provincial town for example.
Calling Manchester a “provincial town” says it all really. Utter ignorance.
In world terms, Manchester is a provincial town my friend.
Bullshit.
In world terms Manchester is a major city, on a par with the likes of Philadelphia or Brussels or San Diego.
Not really and that is part of Burnham's point that Britain is too centralised around London.
Yes really.
Under the GaWC rankings London is an Alpha city, while Manchester is a Beta city like the ones I named and others including Rome, Atlanta, Barcelona, Seattle and other famous major cities.
I thought the zero on 10 Downing Street was supposed to be at an angle. It looks fairly straight behind the new Prime Minister. Maybe I need a new telly.
I thought that too. I think they've replaced the numbers with a sans serif version. I preferred the old one but maybe I'm just old fashioned.
From the point of view of the establishment, the main purpose of Burnham is to stop Farage entering No 10. That's more important to them than the particulars of what Burnham actually does in office.
Burnham's. Delivery. Has. A strange. Cadence My wife observes.
Ending rough sleeping. It was done during Covid, it is good to see there is a commitment to do it again.
"We will do better." He said. I think I would have preferred an emphasis on turning around the country being a collective effort that required the involvement of everyone. "We're all in it together," was one of the best political soundbites of our generation.
Like the greatest living Canadian, William Shatner, every word is its own sentence ?
Comments
Hmmm.
Horror show 🧟♂️
However France is why Argentina isn't part of Spain, as the Peninsular war triggered the Argentinian war of Independence - so another reason to nuke France...
Until the Iranians make some concession Trump can hang a victory claim onto he will keep at it. Better to continue the war than to crystallise the defeat.
The political pressures not to let this happen are interesting. And worthy of study.
A reason to thank the French?
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
3m
Remember when I said whoever replaces Starmer will probably be even worse? That.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2079167338864152997
No lectern in Downing Street.
St John’s produced Bobby Jenrick and Richard Burgon
"After having to fight the British invasions by themselves with little direct help from Spain that at the moment was involved in the Napoleonic Wars, the seeds of independence in Argentina were starting to grow..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_River_Plate
Bondholders can get f***ed. They made a bad bet and lost.
Typical one rule for them, one for us . . .
This will be an early test for Burnham.
But I think the mutual outcome prediction is a pretty good call.
She's hoping that means she can keep her apps.
I doubt it though, but I wonder how many kids feel the same.
🤦♂️
But with six or seven Parties a regular 10% lead is going to be very hard to achieve. For anybody.
He arrived in the same car as her.
Drilling in the North Sea.
Shabana Mahmood as CotE.
Reasons to be cheerful.
Drilling in the North Sea.
Shabana Mahmood as CotE.
Reasons to be cheerful.
“Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.”
“Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut”
“while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.”
So you can’t do it without private investment? That’s how we treat it? That’s the pitch for people investing?
I think we need a fool in the background bringing some shade.
Investors need to do their due diligence and all investments can go down as well as up.
In world terms Manchester is a major city, on a par with the likes of Philadelphia or Brussels or San Diego.
Burnham actually momentarily stopped his speech.
I’ve been dipping in and out of it.
Easily the stupidest most naive government ever. This is going to be terrible.
Now lets see if he's any better at governing. Also a low bar.
Wasn't impressed with his banging on about a wrong turn in the 80s. Lets see how he actually governs.
Taxes are going up!
The private sector ran a monopoly into the ground financially (that much of that was the responsibility of a previous private sector owner is irrelevant; investors are responsible for their own due diligence). It's not up to the customers to guarantee owners' profits and absorb any losses; the nature of capitalism is that you take a risk when you invest.
There is absolutely no reasons to give existing shareholders the benefit of a recapitalisation which will be funded almost entirely by customers and/or taxpayers, That would be corporate welfare, not free market capitalism.
An essential public utility monopoly ought never to have been privatised in the first place.
It’s whether he really has the balls to fix the underlying stuff. Nodal energy pricing. Flat property value tax. Public transport investment.
The value of your shares can do down as well as up. Especially if you take a huge dividend while loading the company with debt it can no longer afford to service.
My wife observes.
Ending rough sleeping. It was done during Covid, it is good to see there is a commitment to do it again.
"We will do better." He said.
I think I would have preferred an emphasis on turning around the country being a collective effort that required the involvement of everyone. "We're all in it together," was one of the best political soundbites of our generation.
Under the GaWC rankings London is an Alpha city, while Manchester is a Beta city like the ones I named and others including Rome, Atlanta, Barcelona, Seattle and other famous major cities.
In no context is it a "provincial town".
Who would have thought that Starmer as PM would outlast Farage as an MP?
Nice words. Decent speech.
I said to the Labour canvassers who came to ours on Saturday, I’m no longer a Labour supporter, but I’ll give him a chance and see what happens.