The first paragraph is not quite as good as Alistair Meeks' legendary thread header on Turkish conscription but it gets an honourable mention.
I see the Chairman of Carrillion was an adviser þo the Tories on Corporate Governance and a signatory to the Labour are a danger to jobs letter.
No comment required
Given the nature of the beast many if not most of Carillion's direct jobs will probably be absorbed elsewhere.
The more pertinent worry should be - and currently doesn't seem to be - about failures among its suppliers of divers materials which might cause very significant job losses and have some very serious knock-on effects.
It's the lead story on the Telegraph's website. I agree that the consequences could be severe for some.
My nightmare scenario would be the people who do the cleaning and maintenance and cook the meals are kept on - but have no materials because the company supplying them has gone bust.
I wouldn't see empty supermarket shelves but I can easily see school dinners being disrupted.
"My personal solution is regional visas for London and Scotland, areas which were very pro-Remain. It works fine as a system in other countries yet the unimaginative on here dismiss it for some reason. Freedom of movement but only to jobs/residences within London and Scotland. Great idea."
I can't see how that could work.
Canada manages it.
Canada is a rather large country with very large provinces and travelling distances are significant. Provinces there also have greater powers than local councils in the UK.
How exactly would a London visa work - how do you prevent someone crossing the road in Woodford or south Croydon and working in Essex or Surrey. It's fine in theory - but London government has no legislative powers or Systems to enforce it. Will visa holders be able to work in London and live in Berkshire.
We aren't big enough to operate a regional system like Australia or Canada and frankly don't have the systems or capacity either.
The first paragraph is not quite as good as Alistair Meeks' legendary thread header on Turkish conscription but it gets an honourable mention.
I see the Chairman of Carrillion was an adviser þo the Tories on Corporate Governance and a signatory to the Labour are a danger to jobs letter.
No comment required
Labour, the enemies of capitalism, stepped in and bailed out the banks.
Tories, the friends of small businesses, stepped back and sent the subcontractors to the wall.
But, the golden rule of British policies -- no matter who is in power -- is: all serious fraud in the UK goes unpunished.
The connections between say Fred Goodwin and Labour (remember, they knighted him) or Philip Green and the Tories are just the workings of the golden rule.
One of the few amusing aspects of Carillion is to note that their chairman is also called Phillip Green.
In light of this I would advise caution in buying stock in companies operated by blokes called Phillip Green!
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
To put that in context, they were already paid far more than teachers (indeed, pretty well double what the average teacher earns) for what is - quite bluntly - not an especially difficult job.
That doesn't suggest to me a reining in of the producer interest.
Under a nationalised system that sort of producer intransigence would be nationwide....
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
To put that in context, they were already paid far more than teachers (indeed, pretty well double what the average teacher earns) for what is - quite bluntly - not an especially difficult job.
That doesn't suggest to me a reining in of the producer interest.
Under a nationalised system that sort of producer intransigence would be nationwide....
Don't forget Corbyn's policy at the GE....no driver-less trains and all existing driver-less trains must have drivers. So some people are going to get £50k a year to sit on the DLR and do nothing all day.
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
To put that in context, they were already paid far more than teachers (indeed, pretty well double what the average teacher earns) for what is - quite bluntly - not an especially difficult job.
That doesn't suggest to me a reining in of the producer interest.
Under a nationalised system that sort of producer intransigence would be nationwide....
Don't forget Corbyn's policy at the GE....no driver-less trains and all existing driver-less trains must have drivers.
I had forgotten that one. Corbyn the Luddite. Unspoofable.
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
To put that in context, they were already paid far more than teachers (indeed, pretty well double what the average teacher earns) for what is - quite bluntly - not an especially difficult job.
That doesn't suggest to me a reining in of the producer interest.
Under a nationalised system that sort of producer intransigence would be nationwide....
Don't forget Corbyn's policy at the GE....no driver-less trains and all existing driver-less trains must have drivers.
I had forgotten that one. Corbyn the Luddite. Unspoofable.
Next, he will be proposing to ban McDonald's self service system. Every order must be taken by a human being paid at least £15/hr.
I don't get how this happens. Surely the accused would have made his brief aware of those photos and asked them to get hold of them?
That seems to have been what happened:
' According to his lawyers, the CPS said after he had been charged that apart from text messages between the pair, there was nothing else of relevance on the phone.
The defence commissioned its own expert to examine the device and a report containing details of the images was sent to the CPS on 5 January. '
But we have some idea from last year's manifesto and from what was said at last year's Conference and what its senior politicians have been saying. So it is perfectly fair to make some sort of assessment based on what we know now as to what the range of possibilities might be.
I think you miss the 4th obvious meme against Labour: that while its heart may be in the right place its policies are either not thought through or have unintended consequences which end up causing more harm than good. That seems to me to the most realistic one since it has so often been proved to be true.
2022 is a lifetime away and mot important we will be out of the EU and in a new economic and political relationship with the EU and the rest of the world. Until we see the colour of that new relationship (if there is one) it will be difficult to position around or to it.
"Unintended consequences" is a difficult point to argue - I don't see the record of Labour Governments since 1945 as being hugely better or worse than Conservative administrations. Both have done both good and bad things.
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
To put that in context, they were already paid far more than teachers (indeed, pretty well double what the average teacher earns) for what is - quite bluntly - not an especially difficult job.
That doesn't suggest to me a reining in of the producer interest.
Under a nationalised system that sort of producer intransigence would be nationwide....
Don't forget Corbyn's policy at the GE....no driver-less trains and all existing driver-less trains must have drivers.
I had forgotten that one. Corbyn the Luddite. Unspoofable.
Next, he will be proposing to ban McDonald's self service system. Every order must be taken by a human being paid at least £15/hr.
I would say: don't give him ideas. But he's probably already planning it.
The idea that being dependant on the votes of a few MPs makes you more moderate is not some immutable law of nature. It is just as likely to make you more extreme provided you can get enough votes for your.... .
Replying to various posts:
- Yes, they do want to change the social model (which is currently simply broken for many people - equality of opportunity seems a joke) and to some extent the economic model (by public ownership of trains and utilities). The capital controls suggestion is based on McDonnell saying that they would need to consider all possibilities so that an incoming government wasn't caught by surprise, but he's never proposed controls and for the reasons others have said they're essentially unworkable. There are also at least 50 Labour MP who would vote against.
There are perfectly good reasons for Tories to be opposed to Labour, if they like the structure of society as it is and don't feel too bothered about the state of public services and the current levels of inequality, and if they make different choices in the hard decisions, such as housing vs green belt protection. But they are spending too much time putting up straw men and spinning fantasies around them, and that approach is well past its sell-by date. The Conservatives need to rediscover a reason for governing other than "we're not the other lot who might...", or move aside until they've worked one out. No governments last forever, and this one is palpably exhausted beyond its own interest, let alone the country's interest.
Rail nationalisation is one idea that most of the country can get behind. The franchising system has been an abject failure.
No, it hasn't.
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
The support of so many in Britain for rail renationalisation is one of life's great mysteries.
We'd go back to regular strikes, old rolling stock, worse customer service, slow reaction to demand for new services, far fewer extensions to the network, less infrastructure and stations renewal, and timetabling and service patterns to suit staff not passengers.
Just wondering what you lot will be like when the new Tory party chairman has been able to get you to overcome your shyness about arguing the Conservative case.
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
To put that in context, they were already paid far more than teachers (indeed, pretty well double what the average teacher earns) for what is - quite bluntly - not an especially difficult job.
That doesn't suggest to me a reining in of the producer interest.
Under a nationalised system that sort of producer intransigence would be nationwide....
Don't forget Corbyn's policy at the GE....no driver-less trains and all existing driver-less trains must have drivers.
I had forgotten that one. Corbyn the Luddite. Unspoofable.
Next, he will be proposing to ban McDonald's self service system. Every order must be taken by a human being paid at least £15/hr.
I would say: don't give him ideas. But he's probably already planning it.
Doubt it. McDonald's employees aren't generally unionised so they're not "his" people.
But we have some idea from last year's manifesto and from what was said at last year's Conference and what its senior politicians have been saying. So it is perfectly fair to make some sort of assessment based on what we know now as to what the range of possibilities might be.
I think you miss the 4th obvious meme against Labour: that while its heart may be in the right place its policies are either not thought through or have unintended consequences which end up causing more harm than good. That seems to me to the most realistic one since it has so often been proved to be true.
2022 is a lifetime away and mot important we will be out of the EU and in a new economic and political relationship with the EU and the rest of the world. Until we see the colour of that new relationship (if there is one) it will be difficult to position around or to it.
"Unintended consequences" is a difficult point to argue - I don't see the record of Labour Governments since 1945 as being hugely better or worse than Conservative administrations. Both have done both good and bad things.
Stodge - you may not have seen this speech either where Corbyn says he wants to learn from Syriza:
Has it occurred to you that the reason I compare Corbyn to these people is because (a) he himself does and (b) the comparison is valid because the programme is similar?
I don't think Corbyn is a Socialist, by the way. In his adoption of every push-button issue for his target audience with promises he has not the slightest intention of keeping, in many ways he's he archetypal Blairite. A good Socialist would not be promising to cut benefits, raise inheritance tax thresholds and free school meals for millionaires' children. But more pertinently he's a populist. A not terribly successful populist, admittedly, because he isn't popular enough to win an election, but nevertheless a naked populist.
As we are seeing everywhere these buggers get into power, they are disastrous. Corbyn might even be worse because although Chavez was a card-carrying criminal in a way Corbyn is not, he was also intelligent, which Corbyn is certainly not.
But if you cannot see the awful reality that Corbyn himself is obligingly displaying for you perhaps you are right and there is nothing more to say.
The idea that being dependant on the votes of a few MPs makes you more moderate is not some immutable law of nature. It is just as likely to make you more extreme provided you can get enough votes for your.... .
Replying to various posts:
- Yes, they do want to change the social model (which is currently simply broken for many people - equality of opportunity seems a joke) and to some extent the economic model (by public ownership of trains and utilities). The capital controls suggestion is based on McDonnell saying that they would need to consider all possibilities so that an incoming government wasn't caught by surprise, but he's never proposed controls and for the reasons others have said they're essentially unworkable. There are also at least 50 Labour MP who would vote against.
There are perfectly good reasons for Tories to be opposed to Labour, if they like the structure of society as it is and don't feel too bothered about the state of public services and the current levels of inequality, and if they make different choices in the hard decisions, such as housing vs green belt protection. But they are spending too much time putting up straw men and spinning fantasies around them, and that approach is well past its sell-by date. The Conservatives need to rediscover a reason for governing other than "we're not the other lot who might...", or move aside until they've worked one out. No governments last forever, and this one is palpably exhausted beyond its own interest, let alone the country's interest.
Rail nationalisation is one idea that most of the country can get behind. The franchising system has been an abject failure.
No, it hasn't.
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
The support of so many in Britain for rail renationalisation is one of life's great mysteries.
We'd go back to regular strikes, old rolling stock, worse customer service, slow reaction to demand for new services, far fewer extensions to the network, less infrastructure and stations renewal, and timetabling and service patterns to suit staff not passengers.
There is widespread belief that 'someone' is profiterring at the expense of 'people like me'.
This belief is encouraged every time we have a Carillion / BHS / banks scandal.
One partial solution is to ensure that the fatcats involved go to jail.
The idea that being dependant on the votes of a few MPs makes you more moderate is not some immutable law of nature. It is just as likely to make you more extreme provided you can get enough votes for your.... .
Replying to various posts:
- Yes, they do want to change the social model (which is currently simply broken for many people - equality of opportunity seems a joke) and to some extent the economic model (by public ownership of trains and utilities). The capital controls suggestion is based on McDonnell saying that they would need to consider all possibilities so that an incoming government wasn't caught by surprise, but he's never proposed controls and for the reasons others have said they're essentially unworkable. There are also at least 50 Labour MP who would vote against.
There are perfectly good reasons for Tories to be opposed to Labour, if they like the structure of society as it is and don't feel too bothered about the state of public services and the current levels of inequality, and if they make different choices in the hard decisions, such as housing vs green belt protection. But they are spending too much time putting up straw men and spinning fantasies around them, and that approach is well past its sell-by date. The Conservatives need to rediscover a reason for governing other than "we're not the other lot who might...", or move aside until they've worked one out. No governments last forever, and this one is palpably exhausted beyond its own interest, let alone the country's interest.
Rail nationalisation is one idea that most of the country can get behind. The franchising system has been an abject failure.
No, it hasn't.
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
The support of so many in Britain for rail renationalisation is one of life's great mysteries.
We'd go back to regular strikes, old rolling stock, worse customer service, slow reaction to demand for new services, far fewer extensions to the network, less infrastructure and stations renewal, and timetabling and service patterns to suit staff not passengers.
The problem is that any investment is paid for by taxpayers (cf the Chase Line) and profits including the obscene wages for semi-skilled drivers are paid for by commuters. Lose-lose. And we still have strikes, delays, old rolling stock etc.
I wouldn't want to go back to BR but I don't think the current system is working well either.
The idea that being dependant on the votes of a few MPs makes you more moderate is not some immutable law of nature. It is just as likely to make you more extreme provided you can get enough votes for your.... .
Replying to various posts:
- Yes, they do want to change the social model (which is currently simply broken for many people - equality of opportunity seems a joke) and to some extent the economic model (by public ownership of trains and utilities). The capital controls suggestion is based on McDonnell saying that they would need to consider all possibilities
There are perfectly good reasons for Tories to be opposed to Labour, if they like the structure of society as it is and don't feel too bothered about the state of public services and the current levels of inequality, and if they make different choices in the hard decisions, such as housing vs green belt protection. But they are spending too much time putting up straw men and spinning fantasies around them, and that approach is well past its sell-by date. The Conservatives need to rediscover a reason for governing other than "we're not the other lot who might...", or move aside until they've worked one out. No governments last forever, and this one is palpably exhausted beyond its own interest, let alone the country's interest.
Rail nationalisation is one idea that most of the country can get behind. The franchising system has been an abject failure.
No, it hasn't.
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
The support of so many in Britain for rail renationalisation is one of life's great mysteries.
We'd go back to regular strikes, old rolling stock, worse customer service, slow reaction to demand for new services, far fewer extensions to the network, less infrastructure and stations renewal, and timetabling and service patterns to suit staff not passengers.
There is widespread belief that 'someone' is profiterring at the expense of 'people like me'.
This belief is encouraged every time we have a Carillion / BHS / banks scandal.
One partial solution is to ensure that the fatcats involved go to jail.
Rail company profits are about 3-4% of ticket prices. That's a significantly lower profit margin than mostly private businesses make.
I sometimes wonder if we'd rather pay 25% more for transport and utilities, where there was no private sector making any profit, than 25% less, where a firm is making 5% profit from it but keeping overrall costs down as a consequence.
Unlike some on here, I'm completely relaxed with the prospect of a Corbyn Government (if it happens). After 12 years of Conservative-led Government, it's not bad for the democratic process to deliver a change.
I wonder how many said that about Tsipras or Chavez.
In the UK, none of us have real experience of a radical change in approach between an outgoing and incoming government. I believe Corbyn could be one such - he doesn't want to scare the horses, but looking at his policy positions and public statements, I think he would try for a real shift to the left. It would be interesting given we already have high rates of tax take in the UK: I'm not sure how much scope there is to gather more before people would start doing serious avoidance.
The support of so many in Britain for rail renationalisation is one of life's great mysteries.
We'd go back to regular strikes, old rolling stock, worse customer service, slow reaction to demand for new services, far fewer extensions to the network, less infrastructure and stations renewal, and timetabling and service patterns to suit staff not passengers.
Fine, let's have investment but why should passengers and commuters always have to pay through the pocket ? I'm happy to have a not-for-profit non-Governmental organisation run the railways - yes, they would have some public subsidy but you seem to believe that unless there's profit involved the service will deteriorate.
That text is all the hoax. I'm not sure why you think that one snippet is genuine.
No it is not, first line 'A report published recently (this note is being written in late February, 2007), by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.'
Then further down 'The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the institute measured him at 175.'
Thus confirming that the only Democratic President whose IQ has been verified is Carter.
That text is all the hoax. I'm not sure why you think that one snippet is genuine.
No it is not, first line 'A report published recently (this note is being written in late February, 2007), by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.'
Then further down 'The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the institute measured him at 175.'
Thus confirming that the only Democratic President whose IQ has been verified is Carter.
No, this isn’t a real news report, nor does it describe a real study. There isn’t a “Lovenstein Institute” in Scranton, Pennsylvania (or anywhere else in the USA), nor do any of the people quoted in the story exist, because this is just another spoof that was taken too seriously.
The article quoted above began circulating on the Internet during the summer of 2001. In furtherance of the hoax, later that year pranksters thought to register www.lovenstein.org and erect a web site around it in an attempt to fool people into thinking there really was such an institute.
There are perfectly good reasons for Tories to be opposed to Labour, if they like the structure of society as it is and don't feel too bothered about the state of public services and the current levels of inequality, and if they make different choices in the hard decisions, such as housing vs green belt protection. But they are spending too much time putting up straw men and spinning fantasies around them, and that approach is well past its sell-by date. The Conservatives need to rediscover a reason for governing other than "we're not the other lot who might...", or move aside until they've worked one out. No governments last forever, and this one is palpably exhausted beyond its own interest, let alone the country's interest.
Rail nationalisation is one idea that most of the country can get behind. The franchising system has been an abject failure.
No, it hasn't.
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
The support of so many in Britain for rail renationalisation is one of life's great mysteries.
We'd go back to regular strikes, old rolling stock, worse customer service, slow reaction to demand for new services, far fewer extensions to the network, less infrastructure and stations renewal, and timetabling and service patterns to suit staff not passengers.
There is widespread belief that 'someone' is profiterring at the expense of 'people like me'.
This belief is encouraged every time we have a Carillion / BHS / banks scandal.
One partial solution is to ensure that the fatcats involved go to jail.
And for people to go to jail they need to be tried - assuming there is any evidence of a criminal offence having been committed - and convicted.
Unless we're going to jail people just for being rich or incompetent.....
People need to be held properly responsible and accountable for their actions as directors. On that I wholeheartedly agree. The civil law: losing bonuses or having to pay them back, disqualification as directors etc are more effective than the criminal law - not least because often there is no evidence of criminality. But these routes need to be used.
Don't underestimate the amount of incompetence there is in some big companies. That often explains pretty much everything without the need to allege criminality.
That text is all the hoax. I'm not sure why you think that one snippet is genuine.
No it is not, first line 'A report published recently (this note is being written in late February, 2007), by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.'
Then further down 'The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the institute measured him at 175.'
Thus confirming that the only Democratic President whose IQ has been verified is Carter.
Christ on a bike.
The words you quote are between the headings "Begin hoax" and "End hoax"; they are between those headings because they are part of the hoax.
That text is all the hoax. I'm not sure why you think that one snippet is genuine.
No it is not, first line 'A report published recently (this note is being written in late February, 2007), by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.'
Then further down 'The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the institute measured him at 175.'
Thus confirming that the only Democratic President whose IQ has been verified is Carter.
Christ on a bike.
The words you quote are between the headings "Begin hoax" and "End hoax"; they are between those headings because they are part of the hoax.
Charles nailed it the other day. HYUFD cannot admit he is ever wrong.
The support of so many in Britain for rail renationalisation is one of life's great mysteries.
We'd go back to regular strikes, old rolling stock, worse customer service, slow reaction to demand for new services, far fewer extensions to the network, less infrastructure and stations renewal, and timetabling and service patterns to suit staff not passengers.
Fine, let's have investment but why should passengers and commuters always have to pay through the pocket ? I'm happy to have a not-for-profit non-Governmental organisation run the railways - yes, they would have some public subsidy but you seem to believe that unless there's profit involved the service will deteriorate.
I think we suffer because profit is involved.
The public subsidy would come from general taxation. And because there would always be something more politically rewarding for HM Treasury to spend its money on (the NHS, or free school meals, for example) infrastructure and rolling stock renewal would suffer.
Meanwhile, the Unions would use their monopoly position to retain outdated working practices, inefficient overstaffing and high salaries.
The public would demand fare caps but the cuts would have to come from somewhere. And they'd come from a greatly deteriorated service quality.
There would be little to no incentive to respond to local customer demands or feedback. It'd be run nationally and politically, and very much as a secondary priority.
And for people to go to jail they need to be tried - assuming there is any evidence of a criminal offence having been committed - and convicted.
Unless we're going to jail people just for being rich or incompetent.....
It is disturbing to reflect that I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that there could be worse outcomes for us as a nation if the latter principle were extended to both the government and the Loyal Opposition. Which is hardly a comforting thought for somebody who has voted in local parish council by-elections on a point of principle.
Good night everybody. Try not to have too many nightmares.
Unlike some on here, I'm completely relaxed with the prospect of a Corbyn Government (if it happens). After 12 years of Conservative-led Government, it's not bad for the democratic process to deliver a change.
I wonder how many said that about Tsipras or Chavez.
In the UK, none of us have real experience of a radical change in approach between an outgoing and incoming government. I believe Corbyn could be one such - he doesn't want to scare the horses, but looking at his policy positions and public statements, I think he would try for a real shift to the left. It would be interesting given we already have high rates of tax take in the UK: I'm not sure how much scope there is to gather more before people would start doing serious avoidance.
1979 was probably the last radical change in approach. That change took a long time to show any positive effects, caused some pretty serious social and economic dislocation and quite a lot of people suffered quite badly from some of the changes which were made.
I agree that Corbyn would try a real shift to the left and I would not be surprised if it could be some time before any positive effects became evident, if there might in the interim be some pretty serious economic and social dislocation and that some might suffer quite badly as a result of such changes.
This does not mean that events will happen in the same way and it may well be that people feel that such disclocation is a small or a good price to pay. But I think it would be foolish to assume that such consequences might not happen and that there will be no unintended consequences.
But the single biggest worry is that a Labour government will be operating in a post-Brexit environment but will still be dealing with a huge number of Brexit-related matters which have the capacity to throw his programme off course in ways which we cannot anticipate.
@Stodge is right: 2021 is a long way away. Still, this is PB and we talk about lots of things which will probably never happen.
The support of so many in Britain for rail renationalisation is one of life's great mysteries.
We'd go back to regular strikes, old rolling stock, worse customer service, slow reaction to demand for new services, far fewer extensions to the network, less infrastructure and stations renewal, and timetabling and service patterns to suit staff not passengers.
Fine, let's have investment but why should passengers and commuters always have to pay through the pocket ? I'm happy to have a not-for-profit non-Governmental organisation run the railways - yes, they would have some public subsidy but you seem to believe that unless there's profit involved the service will deteriorate.
I think we suffer because profit is involved.
The public subsidy would come from general taxation. And because there would always be something more politically rewarding for HM Treasury to spend its money on (the NHS, or free school meals, for example) infrastructure and rolling stock renewal would suffer.
Take out all the rent-seeking from the industry and I bet the required subsidy would plummet.
That text is all the hoax. I'm not sure why you think that one snippet is genuine.
No it is not, first line 'A report published recently (this note is being written in late February, 2007), by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.'
Then further down 'The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the institute measured him at 175.'
Thus confirming that the only Democratic President whose IQ has been verified is Carter.
Christ on a bike.
The words you quote are between the headings "Begin hoax" and "End hoax"; they are between those headings because they are part of the hoax.
READ THE ARTICLE It is talking about the Institute's findings and then says as I have already posted TWICE 'No President other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the Institute measured him at 175'
That text is all the hoax. I'm not sure why you think that one snippet is genuine.
No it is not, first line 'A report published recently (this note is being written in late February, 2007), by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.'
Then further down 'The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the institute measured him at 175.'
Thus confirming that the only Democratic President whose IQ has been verified is Carter.
Christ on a bike.
The words you quote are between the headings "Begin hoax" and "End hoax"; they are between those headings because they are part of the hoax.
Charles nailed it the other day. HYUFD cannot admit he is ever wrong.
More a case of if you do not agree with Charles then you are wrong
People need to be held properly responsible and accountable for their actions as directors. On that I wholeheartedly agree. The civil law: losing bonuses or having to pay them back, disqualification as directors etc are more effective than the criminal law - not least because often there is no evidence of criminality. But these routes need to be used.
And people have been saying this since the Marconi collapse nearly twenty years ago.
Yet nothing gets done and remuneration committees keep handing out ooutrageous contracts and the City institutions keep voting in favour of them.
Here's some of the Carillion details:
' Roger Barker, head of corporate governance at the Institute of Directors, said the collapse of the company “suggests that effective governance was lacking at Carillion”. He added: “We must now consider if the board and shareholders have exercised appropriate oversight prior to the collapse.
“There are some worrying signs. The relaxation of clawback conditions for executive bonuses in 2016 appears in retrospect to be highly inappropriate. It does no good to the reputation of UK business when top managers appear to benefit in spite of the collapse of the organisations that they are responsible for.”
His comments on clawback refer to a change in the company’s pay policy made in 2016 that limited the criteria under which the company could demand the repayment of executive bonuses. Previously the firm could ask for cash back if the business went bust but the revised policy said it could only do so in the event of gross misconduct or if the financial results had been misstated.
The chair of the remuneration committee, which sets the pay policy and made the change, is the non-executive Carillion director Alison Horner, head of human resources at Tesco.
Much of the criticism has centred on Richard Howson, Carillion’s former chief executive from 2012 until a shock profit warning last July resulted in his stepping down.
Howson earned £1.5m in 2016, including £591,000 in bonuses. He continued to work for the firm until last autumn after stepping down as chief executive and is due to stay on the payroll, receiving his £660,000 salary and £28,000 benefits for another year, until October 2018.
Howson’s replacement, the interim chief executive, Keith Cochrane, was a Carillion non-executive director who joined the company in July 2015. He was due to step aside in favour of a new permanent chief executive next week – but Cochrane is also set to keep on receiving his £750,000 base salary until July. '
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
To put that in context, they were already paid far more than teachers (indeed, pretty well double what the average teacher earns) for what is - quite bluntly - not an especially difficult job.
That doesn't suggest to me a reining in of the producer interest.
That text is all the hoax. I'm not sure why you think that one snippet is genuine.
No it is not, first line 'A report published recently (this note is being written in late February, 2007), by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.'
Then further down 'The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the institute measured him at 175.'
Thus confirming that the only Democratic President whose IQ has been verified is Carter.
Christ on a bike.
The words you quote are between the headings "Begin hoax" and "End hoax"; they are between those headings because they are part of the hoax.
READ THE ARTICLE It is talking about the Institute's findings and then says as I have already posted TWICE 'No President other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the Institute measured him at 175'
Carter did graduate work in nuclear physics and was first officer of a nuclear submarine
Comments
I wouldn't see empty supermarket shelves but I can easily see school dinners being disrupted.
How exactly would a London visa work - how do you prevent someone crossing the road in Woodford or south Croydon and working in Essex or Surrey. It's fine in theory - but London government has no legislative powers or Systems to enforce it. Will visa holders be able to work in London and live in Berkshire.
We aren't big enough to operate a regional system like Australia or Canada and frankly don't have the systems or capacity either.
In light of this I would advise caution in buying stock in companies operated by blokes called Phillip Green!
Thank you Francis, I had missed that story.
' According to his lawyers, the CPS said after he had been charged that apart from text messages between the pair, there was nothing else of relevance on the phone.
The defence commissioned its own expert to examine the device and a report containing details of the images was sent to the CPS on 5 January. '
"Unintended consequences" is a difficult point to argue - I don't see the record of Labour Governments since 1945 as being hugely better or worse than Conservative administrations. Both have done both good and bad things.
I would say: don't give him ideas. But he's probably already planning it.
https://youtu.be/w7av_K5enbM
We'd go back to regular strikes, old rolling stock, worse customer service, slow reaction to demand for new services, far fewer extensions to the network, less infrastructure and stations renewal, and timetabling and service patterns to suit staff not passengers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11761242/Jeremy-Corbyn-Labour-needs-to-learn-from-Greeces-Syriza-and-the-SNP.html
Has it occurred to you that the reason I compare Corbyn to these people is because (a) he himself does and (b) the comparison is valid because the programme is similar?
I don't think Corbyn is a Socialist, by the way. In his adoption of every push-button issue for his target audience with promises he has not the slightest intention of keeping, in many ways he's he archetypal Blairite. A good Socialist would not be promising to cut benefits, raise inheritance tax thresholds and free school meals for millionaires' children. But more pertinently he's a populist. A not terribly successful populist, admittedly, because he isn't popular enough to win an election, but nevertheless a naked populist.
As we are seeing everywhere these buggers get into power, they are disastrous. Corbyn might even be worse because although Chavez was a card-carrying criminal in a way Corbyn is not, he was also intelligent, which Corbyn is certainly not.
But if you cannot see the awful reality that Corbyn himself is obligingly displaying for you perhaps you are right and there is nothing more to say.
This belief is encouraged every time we have a Carillion / BHS / banks scandal.
One partial solution is to ensure that the fatcats involved go to jail.
I wouldn't want to go back to BR but I don't think the current system is working well either.
If anyone does want a laugh however:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_4LjkwoyzQU
I sometimes wonder if we'd rather pay 25% more for transport and utilities, where there was no private sector making any profit, than 25% less, where a firm is making 5% profit from it but keeping overrall costs down as a consequence.
I think we suffer because profit is involved.
Then further down 'The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the institute measured him at 175.'
Thus confirming that the only Democratic President whose IQ has been verified is Carter.
It seems a lot of members did not consider the merits of the individual candidates when casting their ballots. Pity.
The article quoted above began circulating on the Internet during the summer of 2001. In furtherance of the hoax, later that year pranksters thought to register www.lovenstein.org and erect a web site around it in an attempt to fool people into thinking there really was such an institute.
https://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.asp
Unless we're going to jail people just for being rich or incompetent.....
People need to be held properly responsible and accountable for their actions as directors. On that I wholeheartedly agree. The civil law: losing bonuses or having to pay them back, disqualification as directors etc are more effective than the criminal law - not least because often there is no evidence of criminality. But these routes need to be used.
Don't underestimate the amount of incompetence there is in some big companies. That often explains pretty much everything without the need to allege criminality.
The words you quote are between the headings "Begin hoax" and "End hoax"; they are between those headings because they are part of the hoax.
Exclusive: Norwegian officials tell Brussels they may seek radical rethink of their terms if UK has to single market for key sectors
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/15/norway-may-rip-up-eu-deal-over-uk-brexit-demands?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Edit: and Metro-North *is* nationalized, or at least "statized" as it's part of the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Meanwhile, the Unions would use their monopoly position to retain outdated working practices, inefficient overstaffing and high salaries.
The public would demand fare caps but the cuts would have to come from somewhere. And they'd come from a greatly deteriorated service quality.
There would be little to no incentive to respond to local customer demands or feedback. It'd be run nationally and politically, and very much as a secondary priority.
Good night everybody. Try not to have too many nightmares.
NEW THREAD
I agree that Corbyn would try a real shift to the left and I would not be surprised if it could be some time before any positive effects became evident, if there might in the interim be some pretty serious economic and social dislocation and that some might suffer quite badly as a result of such changes.
This does not mean that events will happen in the same way and it may well be that people feel that such disclocation is a small or a good price to pay. But I think it would be foolish to assume that such consequences might not happen and that there will be no unintended consequences.
But the single biggest worry is that a Labour government will be operating in a post-Brexit environment but will still be dealing with a huge number of Brexit-related matters which have the capacity to throw his programme off course in ways which we cannot anticipate.
@Stodge is right: 2021 is a long way away. Still, this is PB and we talk about lots of things which will probably never happen.
Yet nothing gets done and remuneration committees keep handing out ooutrageous contracts and the City institutions keep voting in favour of them.
Here's some of the Carillion details:
' Roger Barker, head of corporate governance at the Institute of Directors, said the collapse of the company “suggests that effective governance was lacking at Carillion”. He added: “We must now consider if the board and shareholders have exercised appropriate oversight prior to the collapse.
“There are some worrying signs. The relaxation of clawback conditions for executive bonuses in 2016 appears in retrospect to be highly inappropriate. It does no good to the reputation of UK business when top managers appear to benefit in spite of the collapse of the organisations that they are responsible for.”
His comments on clawback refer to a change in the company’s pay policy made in 2016 that limited the criteria under which the company could demand the repayment of executive bonuses. Previously the firm could ask for cash back if the business went bust but the revised policy said it could only do so in the event of gross misconduct or if the financial results had been misstated.
The chair of the remuneration committee, which sets the pay policy and made the change, is the non-executive Carillion director Alison Horner, head of human resources at Tesco.
Much of the criticism has centred on Richard Howson, Carillion’s former chief executive from 2012 until a shock profit warning last July resulted in his stepping down.
Howson earned £1.5m in 2016, including £591,000 in bonuses. He continued to work for the firm until last autumn after stepping down as chief executive and is due to stay on the payroll, receiving his £660,000 salary and £28,000 benefits for another year, until October 2018.
Howson’s replacement, the interim chief executive, Keith Cochrane, was a Carillion non-executive director who joined the company in July 2015. He was due to step aside in favour of a new permanent chief executive next week – but Cochrane is also set to keep on receiving his £750,000 base salary until July. '
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/15/carillion-highly-inappropriate-pay-packets-criticised
How convenient that the contracts were changed so that executive bonuses could no longer be clawed back.
I'm sure that change was just a coincidence.
https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/train-driver
The rationale for relative pay between various professions is indeed strange.
Market forces ? Seems unlikely.