politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Seven weeks to go before Iowa and Trump remains totally dom

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

John_M said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

John_M said:

William_H said:

If you go by median wealth, which seems like it'd be more representative of the average citizen, then a UK adult is more than twice as wealthy than one from Germany or the USA.

I'd like to see figures on net wealth. A lot of my contemporaries are asset rich, but still have eye-wateringly large mortgages and personal debt.

That describes the UK perfectly.

Goodness - I just assumed it must mean net wealth - I don't owe a penny to anyone - can't see the point of paying debt interest if you don't need to.

Friends of mine are mortgaged to the hilt (on interest-only mortgages to boot). They've used their equity to fund school fees plus a (modestly) rock and roll lifestyle. We were always figures of of fun with our shabby, abstemious existence (e.g. 10 year old cars of the Ford/Vauxhall variety, holidays in exotic Sutherland etc). I don't think our friends are particularly unusual.

*edit* Grammar, idiot.

I've never understood how people expect to live on debt. I borrowed a few thousand in my 30s to pay some other debts off and it took nearly 5 years to get straight. Never again. Now I can buy pretty well whatever I want with cash. Having said that my tastes are fairly modest.

Yeah, but if you think about it, if you can manage to die with massively negative net worth then you've successfully spent far more than you've earned over your life.

As I'm feeling nostalgic for my late Granny, let's go with 'no pockets in a shroud'. That woman was a walking repository of adages, proverbs and old saws. Damn, I miss her.

rcs1000 said:

felix said:

John_M said:

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

John_M said:

William_H said:

If you go by median wealth, which seems like it'd be more representative of the average citizen, then a UK adult is more than twice as wealthy than one from Germany or the USA.

I'd like to see figures on net wealth. A lot of my contemporaries are asset rich, but still have eye-wateringly large mortgages and personal debt.

That describes the UK perfectly.

Goodness - I just assumed it must mean net wealth - I don't owe a penny to anyone - can't see the point of paying debt interest if you don't need to.

Friends of mine are mortgaged to the hilt (on interest-only mortgages to boot). They've used their equity to fund school fees plus a (modestly) rock and roll lifestyle. We were always figures of of fun with our shabby, abstemious existence (e.g. 10 year old cars of the Ford/Vauxhall variety, holidays in exotic Sutherland etc). I don't think our friends are particularly unusual.

*edit* Grammar, idiot.

I've never understood how people expect to live on debt. I borrowed a few thousand in my 30s to pay some other debts off and it took nearly 5 years to get straight. Never again. Now I can buy pretty well whatever I want with cash. Having said that my tastes are fairly modest.

Yeah, but if you think about it, if you can manage to die with massively negative net worth then you've successfully spent far more than you've earned over your life.

Crazy amounts of cheap/zero credit sloshing round at the moment, combined with alot of (relatively) high interest bank accounts. Arbers paradise.

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

AndyJS said:

The Saudis really are trying to bankrupt all other oil producing countries, it seems. The price has dropped by nearly 4% just today.

Venezuela government defeated:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-35024619

The House of Saud digs its own grave.

http://www.thstailwinds.com/saudi-arabia-hobsons-choice/

What is the marginal cost point at which Saudi (And others) start seeing red ink on oil 'contribution' ?

I don't understand the question. Do you mean what is the price at which Saudi Arabia's national oil company is unable to make (any) remittances back to their government?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

In September 2015 it was publicly revealed [224] that the Concorde Club had secured over £160 million to return an aircraft to service. [225]

Concorde Club president Paul James said: “The main obstacle to any Concorde project to date has been ‘Where’s the money?’ – a question we heard ad nauseam, until we found an investor. Now that money is no longer the problem it’s over to those who can help us make it happen.”[226] The organisation aims to buy the Concorde currently on display at Le Bourget airport. A tentative date of 2019 has been put forward for the first flight - 50 years after its maiden journey.[227]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

AIUI they'll have to persuade Rolls Royce and ?BAE /EASA? to allow them to have type certificate. That's very, very unlikely to happen. There is a lower, experimental, class of certificate, but that wouldn't be able to carry passengers.

But IANAE.

It's more likely that one gets revived for research purposes, as happened to a Konkordski twenty years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#Use_by_NASA

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

AndyJS said:

The Saudis really are trying to bankrupt all other oil producing countries, it seems. The price has dropped by nearly 4% just today.

Venezuela government defeated:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-35024619

The House of Saud digs its own grave.

http://www.thstailwinds.com/saudi-arabia-hobsons-choice/

What is the marginal cost point at which Saudi (And others) start seeing red ink on oil 'contribution' ?

I don't understand the question. Do you mean what is the price at which Saudi Arabia's national oil company is unable to make (any) remittances back to their government?

Yes, I guess.

I mean the point at which it costs them more to pump 1 'more' gallon out the ground than the cost of pumping that gallon.

JosiasJessop said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

In September 2015 it was publicly revealed [224] that the Concorde Club had secured over £160 million to return an aircraft to service. [225]

Concorde Club president Paul James said: “The main obstacle to any Concorde project to date has been ‘Where’s the money?’ – a question we heard ad nauseam, until we found an investor. Now that money is no longer the problem it’s over to those who can help us make it happen.”[226] The organisation aims to buy the Concorde currently on display at Le Bourget airport. A tentative date of 2019 has been put forward for the first flight - 50 years after its maiden journey.[227]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

AIUI they'll have to persuade Rolls Royce and ?BAE /EASA? to allow them to have type certificate. That's very, very unlikely to happen. There is a lower, experimental, class of certificate, but that wouldn't be able to carry passengers.

But IANAE.

It's more likely that one gets revived for research purposes, as happened to a Konkordski twenty years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#Use_by_NASA

It seems to be Airbus in fact who is the type authority. But another potential issue has to be noise, certainly in airline service (as opposed to a charter flight and back out into the Atlantic). Did it not have a derogation for operation from LHR even in the 1970s-80s? That was quite separate from sonic bangs.

John_M said:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

AndyJS said:

The Saudis really are trying to bankrupt all other oil producing countries, it seems. The price has dropped by nearly 4% just today.

Venezuela government defeated:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-35024619

The House of Saud digs its own grave.

http://www.thstailwinds.com/saudi-arabia-hobsons-choice/

What is the marginal cost point at which Saudi (And others) start seeing red ink on oil 'contribution' ?

SA is already running a massive deficit (it's around 20% p.a). In response, King Salman is making poor decisions (cutting capital expenditure, not social subsidies). The Kingdom needs oil to be north of $100 p.b. to break even (it's not alone - no one is profitable @ 45$ p.b.). At this rate it'll run its war chest dry in less than five years.

Of course, their response is based on political, not economic, grounds. One day the Salafist pigeon is going to come home to roost -they'll do anything to postpone that day.

The problem is that if they cut production, then the main winners are US and Canadian companies, who will take up the slack.

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

I see the Heathrow decision is being kicked down the road again, perhaps to next autumn. Not being political or anything, but isn't this getting silly? Is the Government's strategy to bore us into submission so that when they eventually make a proposal we all accept it in sheer relief?

Do you have a link for that, Nick? I can't see anything on the Beeb or Guardian

Edit: There's something on the Guardian live blog, but it's unclear quite what it means.

Yes, my source is the Bibl...er, the Guardian blog . I agree it's a bit unclear but their comparison with Times and Sun sources looks credible, and it's not exactly a surprise.

I wonder how many people would REALLY change their votes over Heathrow anyway? I know Tories who say they won't vote Zac because they want Heathrow extended, but I suspect they'll go Tory in the end, since a pro-Heathrow candidate is not evident.

There was some odd polling mentioned in passing in CityAM - that 70% of people in the neighbouring constitutencies favoured expansion.

I'm guessing that is defined quite tightly (I assume Richmond, etc are not "neighbouring"?) but if so then perhaps it is because of how it splits (Labour supporting workers like jobs, LibDem/Tory waverering professionals want to protect Flossie's ear-drums)

TGOHF said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

ThreeQuidder said:

True, but Stansted isn't getting expanded any time soon, so will stay as Europe (and a little bit of north Africa) only...

TGOHF said:

rcs1000 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TGOHF said:

Do either Zak or Khan have an opinion on whether there should be an extra runway anywhere ?

Sadiq has switched to backing Gatwick:

http://www.cityam.com/218067/sadiq-khan-we-need-better-heathrow-not-bigger-heathrow

I think Zac doesn't really like airports at all but particularly not Heathrow.

Not even Boris island ?

Heathrow is awful and 3 runways will surely only make it worse ?

Maybe, but on the other hand the transport links are vastly better than Gatwick and could be enhanced with relative ease.

Gatwick would also affect some areas of unspoilt countryside, which are scarce enough as it is in SE England.

Disclaimer: I live in Sussex, so I might not be entirely free of interest in this!

Living in Cambridge, Gatwick would be an awful choice for me - horrendous to get there.

Train to King's Cross then Thameslink direct to Gatwick, right? Surely that's easier than Heathrow.

Why bother with Heathrow, getting to Stansted is easy.

Can't fly to the US from Stansted.

Yes you can!

Although it's "seasonal" (ie. not all-year), Thomas Cook can fly you to Vegas, and Orlando (and Cancun in Mexico), and Thomson can also fly you to Orlando.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stansted_Airport

Vegas and Orlando are the two places in the US that I would least like to go to.

Charles City, Iowa?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_City,_Iowa

blackburn63 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

AndyJS said:

"Germany has registered 964,574 new asylum-seekers in the first 11 months of the year, putting it on course for more than a million in 2015."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35027951

How the f##k can a country cope with 1.5 million new people just like that. Housing, schools, etc etc etc.

It can't

It can, it becomes just like the country all the newcomers have left

Didn't know the Syrian refugee problem extended to Uruguay:

"Many Uruguayans fed up with complaints from Syrian refugees"

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-many-uruguayans-fed-up-with-complaints-from-syrian-refugees-2015-10?IR=T

isam said:

blackburn63 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

AndyJS said:

"Germany has registered 964,574 new asylum-seekers in the first 11 months of the year, putting it on course for more than a million in 2015."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35027951

How the f##k can a country cope with 1.5 million new people just like that. Housing, schools, etc etc etc.

It can't

It can, it becomes just like the country all the newcomers have left

Mr. Cromwell, possibly excepting in his youth Basil II didn't seem that interested in sex.

It's worth noting that the most under-represented (in the media) of sexualities is probably asexuality, where people just aren't really interested.

@Pulpstar

Comparative cost of production[edit]

In this table based on the Scotiabank Equity Research and Scotiabank Economics report published 28 November 2014,[24] economist Mohr compares the cost of cumulative crude oil production in the fall of 2014.

Place Cost of production in northern hemisphere autumn 2014
Saudi Arabia US$10–25 per barrel
Montney Oil Alberta and British Columbia US$46
Saskatchewan Bakken US$47
Eagle Ford, USA Shale+ US$40–50 (+ Liquids-rich Eagle Ford plays, assuming natural gas prices of US$3.80 per mmbtu)
Lloyd & Seal Conventional Heavy, AB US$50
Conventional Light, Alberta and Saskatchewan US$58.50
Nebraska USA Shale US$58.50
SAGD Bitumen Alberta US$65
North Dakota Bakken, Shale US$54–79
Permian Basin, TX Shale US$59–82
Oil sands legacy projects US$53
Oil sands mining and infrastructure new projects US$90


In 1998 the oil price hit around $17.00 & the Saudi's had massive internal spending cuts.

Problem for the existing producers is around 1 million barrels a day are due to come on the open market from Iran post sanctions and even more from Iraq when the conflict finally ends.

According to the seminar I attended a couple of weeks ago the oil price needs to be around $60 a barrel for Shale producers to open new sites.

Philip_Thompson said:

Just read the letter from Tusk. Reads to me like someone preparing to concede on the four years issue but not on a veto for Euro outs (which I always imagined to be impossible to agree). May not happen yet but given everyone said Cameron would never achieve the four year thing, if he does I wonder who will give him credit for it?

Really? My interpretation is Tusk telling Cameron to feck off.

Patrick said:

It will, of course, take a generation for us to wean ourselves meaningfully off oil and gas. But as we are weaning the price thereof will remain depressed. I don't see that there is an awful lot of light at the end of the tunnel for the Saudis, Russians, Venezuelans, etc as they have constucted for themselves national business models with failure baked in.
Technology is also playing a massive role. The USA can get at shale reserves VERY cost effectively - which creates a new ceiling on price as the USA becomes the swing producer. But there is also more fundamentally disruptive technology moving along. Solar is already cost competitive in some locales. Wind too in some places (China). As and when we get way better batteries the whole intermittence problem of renewables becomes less of an issue. At which point the volume not just the price of oil collapses. The petro-kleptocracies and petro-theocracies have only themselves to blame. It was never going to last forever. What will the Middle East have to offer the world in 30 years' time? They're fu

You're in a position to know, right?

Musk and the Chinese powering the solar/electric car revolution, ISIS potentially being turned against them. US shale. Shia dominated Iran, Iraq...

Saudi Arabia has it's share of problems.

Philip_Thompson said:

May not happen yet but given everyone said Cameron would never achieve the four year thing, if he does I wonder who will give him credit for it?

The question what credit people will give to Cameron depends not a jot on what he achieves, but on the pre-existing positions of the people concerned.

MikeK said:

Is there a vaccination against H1 N1 virus?
https://twitter.com/i24news_EN/status/673902096442335232

(a) Yes.

(b) It doesn't work*

* Well, it may work. Or may not. Depends whether those clever people in Australia in February correctly predict which strain of influenza will be dominant one in Europe in autumn.

This may sound exactly the same as the situation with with all other influenza vaccines.

That's because SWINE FLU IS F**KING INFLUENZA. IT'S NOT SPECIAL. The media thinks it's more exciting to call it "swine flu" or "avian influenza" but it's all the same f**king thing.

I feel better now

isam said:

blackburn63 said:

isam said:

blackburn63 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

AndyJS said:

"Germany has registered 964,574 new asylum-seekers in the first 11 months of the year, putting it on course for more than a million in 2015."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35027951

How the f##k can a country cope with 1.5 million new people just like that. Housing, schools, etc etc etc.

It can't

It can, it becomes just like the country all the newcomers have left

Well quite, but in the meantime who will teach all the children that can't speak German. Merkel is going to leave an awful mess

The teachers among the refugees I guess.. should help build a cohesive society!

I imagine there are a fair few Germans feeling pretty cheated right now. They were told there would be countless doctors, nurses and engineers. From what I have read, businesses with specific schemes to help the migrants have struggled to recruit as they lack the skills required.

Hello, rcs1000 - thanks for the link to your article, and I agree with John_M that it was most interesting and informative.
I have one question, does the current distress in the energy segment of the US high yield bond market affect your argument re future US shale production.
If investors lose a lot of money on these bonds in the near future, then wont that deter them from funding new drilling in the years to come, (and isn't that deterrent factor the reason behind the Saudi's decision to drive prices down)?

rcs1000 said:

Patrick said:

It will, of course, take a generation for us to wean ourselves meaningfully off oil and gas. But as we are weaning the price thereof will remain depressed. I don't see that there is an awful lot of light at the end of the tunnel for the Saudis, Russians, Venezuelans, etc as they have constucted for themselves national business models with failure baked in.
Technology is also playing a massive role. The USA can get at shale reserves VERY cost effectively - which creates a new ceiling on price as the USA becomes the swing producer. But there is also more fundamentally disruptive technology moving along. Solar is already cost competitive in some locales. Wind too in some places (China). As and when we get way better batteries the whole intermittence problem of renewables becomes less of an issue. At which point the volume not just the price of oil collapses. The petro-kleptocracies and petro-theocracies have only themselves to blame. It was never going to last forever. What will the Middle East have to offer the world in 30 years' time? They're fu

I think that's absolutely right.

We may be coming to the end of the oil age.

The Stone age did not end because they ran out of stone.

The Bronze age did not end because they ran out of Bronze

The Iron Age did not end because they ran out of Iron.

and

The Hydrocarbon age will not end because we run out of Hydrocarbons.

It will end when we invent/discover something better, which may well be Wind and/or solar.

I just hope we don't tax and regulate are selves back to the stone age, in a misguided attempt to get us to where we will go anyway.

RUBIO is going to be the next US President because he just ticks so many boxes and is the Republican most Hollywood-esque and in the zeitgeist

It may well seem like chaos , a maze of twists and turns . but in retrospect it will come into clear focus that Rubio was always going to win ; as inevitable as water finding its way down a hill ..look upon it as a form of political evolution in process

Naturally , he could still lose but only to a ''black swan event '' IE an event unpredictable but with catastrophic consequences

He could get caught in flagrante dilecti as in Gary Hart in 1988 , or God forbid , be assassinated by a radicalised Arab like Bobby Kennedy was in 1968 , or even be the victim of a tragic aircraft disaster like Paul Wellstone ...it could happen ,but he would have to be very , very unlucky ...it seems to me that Rubio with his sunny optimisn is a lucky politician ; indeed , it's much more likely that he will simply become the next POTUS

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Arrogant seems like an odd word choice for that action. Some will think it a good idea, some a bad one, and others might think stopping the plans might be good but this is not the way to do it, but how is it arrogant? It's defeating something he doesn't like, I don't see how arrogance or humility comes into it.

I hope this monstrosity is never built:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35026103

Richard_Nabavi said:

I hope this monstrosity is never built:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35026103

If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.

Cromwell said:

RUBIO is going to be the next US President because he just ticks so many boxes and is the Republican most Hollywood-esque and in the zeitgeist

It may well seem like chaos , a maze of twists and turns . but in retrospect it will come into clear focus that Rubio was always going to win ; as inevitable as water finding its way down a hill ..look upon it as a form of political evolution in process

Naturally , he could still lose but only to a ''black swan event '' IE an event unpredictable but with catastrophic consequences

He could get caught in flagrante dilecti as in Gary Hart in 1988 , or God forbid , be assassinated by a radicalised Arab like Bobby Kennedy was in 1968 , or even be the victim of a tragic aircraft disaster like Paul Wellstone ...it could happen ,but he would have to be very , very unlucky ...it seems to me that Rubio with his sunny optimisn is a lucky politician ; indeed , it's much more likely that he will simply become the next POTUS

And his Dad was a bartender. LOCK

What are your average odds on him ?

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I hope this monstrosity is never built:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35026103

If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.

It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Charles, reminds me of when a swine flu pandemic was declared.

Turns out the word 'pandemic' has a slightly broader definition than might be commonly assumed.

I think it was 18,500 dead in 214 countries. That's probably technically a pandemic...

Annually influenza causes 3-5 million cases of severe illness resulting in 250,000 - 500,000 deaths. But "the flu" is less sexy than "swine flu".

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.

If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.

There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I hope this monstrosity is never built:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35026103

It does look rather 1960s. At least most of our skyscrapers are interesting architecturally speaking.

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.

If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.

There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.

That's not a mandate.

We live in a representative democracy.

A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children

The Gherkin's official name is 30 St Mary Axe

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.

If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.

There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.

That's not a mandate.

We live in a representative democracy.

A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children

Exactly! If they want children to get the vote then propose it as primary legislation in its own right in the elected chamber and let the Lords review that legislation. Of course they lack a majority in the elected chamber hence why they're trying to short circuit it by proposing this as an amendment on an unrelated issue.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fire, those parties also support not having the Conservatives in government.

Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.

Hard to argue there is "no mandate" for a change over half the population support

not_on_fire said:

Hard to argue there is "no mandate" for a change over half the population support

Citation needed

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I hope this monstrosity is never built:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35026103

If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.

It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.

I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.

This ought to have a name too.

It is a bit boring though. The Gherkin, Shard, Cheesegrater and Walkie Talkie have interesting designs which help get them their well known names.

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I hope this monstrosity is never built:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35026103

If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.

It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.

I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.

This ought to have a name too.

The proper name for the Gherkin is 30 St Mary Axe. The Gherkin is just a nickname and I believe that name has no formal standing. This one is going to struggle to get a nickname (though the block it is due to replace isn't exactly particularly eye-catching either).

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.

If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.

There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.

That's not a mandate.

We live in a representative democracy.

A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children

Then why have an EU referendum at all? Why not trust our glorious representatives to do the right thing?

Richard_Nabavi said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Say what you like about Ken Livingstone but he made London safe for property developers.

Most of the new tall buildings in central London have been good to very good architecturally, IMO (with the notable exception of the 'walkie-talkie'). But the proposed One Undershaft is just an ugly slab which looks as though it's had to be shored up with struts designed by a particularly insensitive structural engineer.

Agreed.

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.

If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.

There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.

That's not a mandate.

We live in a representative democracy.

A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children

Then why have an EU referendum at all? Why not trust our glorious representatives to do the right thing?

Because the elected representatives have decided that we should have a referendum.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I hope this monstrosity is never built:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35026103

If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.

It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.

I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.

This ought to have a name too.

1 Canada Square = Canary Wharf
20 Fenchurch Street = Walkie-talkie
30 St Mary Axe = Gherkin
32 London Bridge Street = Das Shard
110 Bishopsgate = Heron Tower
122 Leadenhall St = Cheese-grater

HOUSE.

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fire, those parties also support not having the Conservatives in government.

Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.

And as we hear a lot, just as the Tories cannot assume everyone who voted for them supports everything in their manifesto, nor can all those disparate parties take for granted that everyone who voted for them supports that particular policy (I voted LD and don't support lowering the voting age to 16, though I think it inevitable at this point).

I don't think it's inevitable at all. As a curiosity how many Westminster style democracies allow children to vote? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Anorak said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I hope this monstrosity is never built:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35026103

If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.

It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.

I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.

This ought to have a name too.

It is a bit boring though. The Gherkin, Shard, Cheesegrater and Walkie Talkie have interesting designs which help get them their well known names.

It's like a stack of Borg cubes. Not sure how to get a catchy name out of that, though

Resistance is futile!

Dr. Prasannan, is it? Despite being ludicrously overpowered, the Borg lose all the bloody time.