politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Methinks that Burnham’s nationalise the railways plan could
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Methinks that Burnham’s nationalise the railways plan could come back to have haunt him
Although Burnham has been careful to say that he’d move the railways back into the public sector line by line it is the headline that is going to stick and will be used by the Tories.
0
Comments
I note the letters "RBS" did not appear here today. What on earth is Britain doing selling bank shares into a low interest rate environment after a sovereign debt crisis?
There are 420k restaurants alone in the United Kingdom and the UK Border Force has 8000 personal, of which a very small proportion are involved in internal enforcement. You need huge sums to make this viable.
You then have the entire legal framework in the way. Not just the big things like the ECHR but rights like Habeus Corpus would need repealed (as they are not dependant on citizenship) and I'm not sure that would even be possible.
Changing the legal framework probably is the only viable approach. But not to create concentration camps and somehow become the first place on earth to eliminate the black economy. More realistically to allow immediate and utterly uncompromising removal from the country.
2. Profit will be made if you collate the figures for all the bank bailouts together. (Lloyds, RBS, UKAR)
Government can't run a bank better than the private sector.
I seem to recall one G Brown (Proprietor, HM Treasury) under long-term fire for selling gold under similarly dim circumstances.
There was plenty of confidence in RBS before the election - when the share price was 25 per cent higher.
Excellent use of "methinks"
It appears that it is being run on a commercial basis by banking professionals hired based on their track record in banking. If you believe this is incorrect, please feel free to clarify.
In any case, as this week's Opinium shows Burnham remains the most popular choice with Labour voters and Tory floaters
Burnham is on 39% with Labour voters, Corbyn on 24%, Cooper on 22%, Kendall on 15%
Amongst Tory voters who would consider Labour, Burnham is on 17%, Cooper and Kendall on 11% each, Corbyn on 4%. Amongst Green leaners Corbyn is on 32%, Burnham 13%, Kendall 9%, Cooper 6%
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/burnham-ahead-among-labour-voters
But a competent opposition that cared about its image on financial stewardship would subject Osborne to the Brown treatment on this one.
That means it probably won't happen
As for railways, it probably doesn't matter whether the government owns them or not. Between public and private sources, British people spend more on the railway than they used to, and the service is better. Long-term, the oil price also moved in favour of the railways. It is very hard to see how this plan can chime with European Commission rail competition directives, but I bet Burnham didn't even know they exist.
Burnham's only real mistake is that he's come to this type of thing so late in the day, after making people so distrustful of him by starting the campaign spouting all the ultra-Blairite nonsense.
EDIT: And I wonder what PBers thoughts are on this: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jul/30/cameron-promises-action-to-restrict-under18s-accessing-pornography
I'd look at CAF's website. They're quite a good vehicle for retail giving to charity. Of course, if you're looking for something a little more bespoke then you can PM me
https://www.cafonline.org/?gclid=CIaM47HUkscCFYbItAodFI8MTQ
After winning 3 Gold Medals for GB in the current World Swimming Championships - the first time this has ever been achieved incidentally, Adam Peaty looks to have a great chance in this year's SPOTY. Not necessarily to win outright, swimming is after all a minority sport, but of at least achieving a place which pays one quarter the 40/1 win odds for a top three finish.
El Gordo was willing to borrow on 60 year terms to pay for assets with 25-30 year useful lives.
The Nats were willing to promise pots of gold at the end of potemkin rainbows...
Need I continue?
It produced one of my favourite PB comments ever.
One poster opined that the one of the most tech savvy goups in the world are teenage boys seeking porn.
Which is one reason why Mr Milliband just got a kick in the rear.
But should the CC choose to pursue it, the Trustees are very liable.
The CC very rarely pursue it, though.
Government shouldn't run banks. It's already got its hands full running the Government.
[1] Admittedly, it would have to be a very long time...:-)
NEW Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is a Catholic, but, as he told a crowd in New Hampshire, that hasn't stopped him from using birth control.
"I'm a Catholic but I've used birth control, and not just the rhythm method," the presidential candidate said in the town hall event.
"My church has a teaching against birth control. Does that make me an awful Catholic? Because I believe and practiced that function during part of my life? I don't think so," he said.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-christie-rhythm-method-birth-control
Surely being Chris Christie is a pretty effective contraception in itself.
Boom, boom.
The 2016 NH Democratic Primary -
Clinton 42%, Sanders 36%. MOE +-5.9%
It's only a single poll, but it has to worry Hillary.
Is it time for Go Joe Go?
All anyone really needs is an imagination (which is far better than online porn).
Male and Female brains are wired somewhat differently. While it's true that (generally) a woman will be stimulated more by imagination, men are very much visual creatures.
On the subject of porn. When will the government do something about the BBC showing Hardcore Food Porn in primetime! All I can think about is heading down to Asda for an utterly enormous Black Forest Gateau. Won't somebody think of the children!
And I see you're a fan of the Great British Bake Off. Although I hate Black Forest Gateu with a passion. In fact I find gateus 'meh' in general....
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201205/the-triggers-sexual-desire-men-vs-women
Randomly pulled article, all the research points to the same thing.
The Richman type programmes do make me quite jealous of US food. For example, outside of multi-national chains it is almost impossible to buy a burger in the UK. Almost everywhere that's not a chain sells meatballs pretending to be burgers. Quite disgusting.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
Also, judging by that link I assume you think sexual objectification is natural - I'd argue being attracted to someone and objectification are two different things, mind.
It isn't simply a matter of declaring and then barnstorming. He has to get campaign chairmen in all states, line up money and donors, and get a staff together. Other than one of his guys meeting with a donor, he has done none of these things.
His late son Beau and his brother have both urged him to run.
I'm starting to think Hillary is in trouble, mainly legally but her polls aren't that good either.
She is a weak candidate as her TV ads which started yesterday show. She is trying to relaunch yet again, and again 'reintroduce herself' to the American people. She was first lady for 8 years, a US senator for 8 years, and Sec of State for 4 years.
If it happens to me they will put me off for good.
I know what works for me personally and it seems I'm reasonably average (was going to put normal but that's almost a pejorative word in the situation) but I wouldn't extend that to believe it is the same for everyone without doing some reading and seeing what the science says.
You don't have to argue one way or another. Just read up on it. Of course, not everyone will like what they read.
This is quite a disgrace. Antifrank said on a previous thread that £3 mio was not that much in the context of government spending. True. But it's not just £3 mio; it's the other £5 mio given in April (where the hell has that gone?) and the two other occasions at least where money was given after Cameron overruled his officials. So let's say £10 - £12 mio in the last couple of years or so.
To put that in another context: last year Nick Clegg pledged an additional £120 mio for mental health. Ca. 10% of that budget has been thrown at just one charity. That money could have gone to mental health services for children, a very worthy cause, and one which could really do with the additional funding.
And think of the other charities which went through all the hoops to get some help from government and were not given as much as they would have liked or were denied it. And then Camilla Lardarse just rings up her mate, the PM, and overrides the rules which apply to every other charity. It's all too reminiscent of a "the rules are only for the little people not for me" arrogance. "I'm so good for the kids that I shouldn't be expected to account for money I get or explain myself to anyone."
This is the arrogance of those who think that because of their superior morality (I run a charity! For children!!), because of their connections (Don't you know who my friends are) they are not subject to the same requirements as everyone else. It is the m.o. of every shyster through the ages. It is eerily reminiscent - to me anyway - of every dodgy trader and banker I've ever interviewed who has managed to convince themselves that they have a wonderful reason for not complying with the rules which apply to everyone else.
Some enterprising and properly investigative journalist ought to be digging deeply into what this charity actually did, where the money went, the names of those working there, what they did, CB's background and qualifications, the role of the trustees etc. I'm willing to bet that if you lifted a few stones you'd find quite a lot.
Whether any of this will happen is another matter. Too many people - including journalists themselves - seem to have been all too willing to be taken in.
And I reserve particular contempt for a woman who blames others for her decision to abandon children a week after receiving THREE MILLION POUNDS AND TROUSERING A THIRD OF IT FOR HER STAFF.
I also love southern food like shrimp and grits - and adore peanut butter pie.
I don't cook so eat out all the time and love food.
Question for the French: why the hell aren't you arresting and charging them then?
And we have a general rule that we don't support organisations that employ professional fundraisers. Our application form is just 2 pages long, but difficult enough that it need the senior leadership team to actually put some thought into it
The thing which strikes me as odd is the reports there were commitments that the money wouldn't be used to pay staff. If that's true, then they should go after the trustees personally. That's basically fraud.
Also, anecdotally, a lot of the new Corbyn surge over the past couple of weeks has come disproportionately from former Burnham supporters who were upset about the Welfare Bill. IF (and it's still an if) people get cold feet on Corbyn, one would expect them to go back to their former "mainstream" choice of Andy rather than Yvette.
The only decision which Osborne should be making is "how do I get the best return for the public purse". That's clearly not how he is making the decision. It is either being done purely on an ideological basis or on a basis of rewarding his friends in the typical way of high level British state corruption.
I have a feeling - for no particular reason - that Joe will run. I could easily be wrong though!
I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
The cynic in me says that the politicians - all of them happy to be seen with the charity - are just hoping that they can minimise any embarrassment and there will be no pressure from anyone to do the sort of inquiry needed. The CC will have other priorities and the SFO is far too busy with Libor and other cases. And in any case it simply won't concern itself with a mere £3 mio case, especially if it would cause embarrassment to a government which it wants to impress in order to save itself from closure or merger.
That's why I don't agree sexual objectification is natural. It's something conditioned by society, and its representation of women.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
I guess 2 weeks in the summer is not a long time in politics.
True enough he doesn't believe the state should own businesses solely to receive a return, but even Jeremy Corbyn does not want a return to the days HMG owned a random collection of things unrelated to the business of government.
But government shouldn't be in the business of making charitable donations with taxpayers money.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif
I wonder what happened at the end of the 1940s, and what happened in the mid 1990s to directly result in a massive change.