If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab. 2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD. 3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP. 4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD. 5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab. 6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab. 7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab. 8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
And if 1022 people in eight different seats, Kensington, Dudley North, Newcastle UL, Crewe, Canterbury, Barrow, Keighley and Rutherglen, had voted the other way, Theresa May would have a majority.
Similarly if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
It requires a far smaller and more plausible swing for the Tories to have a biggish majority than the one Labour need for largest party status. A UNS of 3% gives a majority of 60 in addition to aviating porcines. To achieve a majority of one Corbyn needs over 4% and for some of his shadow cabinet other than Ashworth to look vaguely sane and competent for five minutes.
Given the number of seats with wafer thin majorities and changing demography, the big story of 2022 may well be December 1910 - many seats changing hands to finish more or less where we started.
The balance between left and right has not altered that much in the last three elections, overall, but there have been huge shifts in individual seats.
The risk for Corbyn is that if he overplays the hard-left hand, and Brexit isn't that bad, and the Tories get a savvy new leader, that 3-4% of his votes peels off to the Greens, Lib Dems and NOTA. Then, the Conservatives could win a decent majority on 42% to 36-37% for Labour.
The risk for May (and the Conservatives) is that if Brexit completes but is poor, and May stays, but Corbyn goes, and a more savvy traditional Left figure takes over, their vote falls back from 42% to 34-35%, with a dissipation to UKIP, LDs and NOTA. Labour win decent majority on 41-42%.
Both parties are at the mercy of events, but can also play their leadership, policy and messaging, cards very well, or very badly.
I'd recommend the Conservatives avoid Nick Timothy.
If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab. 2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD. 3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP. 4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD. 5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab. 6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab. 7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab. 8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
True (given it's the Guardian), but correct all the same.
The article is utter self-justifying tosh of the highest order and the only positive thing one can say about it is at least the Guardian is prepared to publish views at odds with it's natural ethos. Sections of it would stand-up well in the Daily Mash tbh.
"...profits, we are told sanctimoniously, are privatised, while risk remains nationalised. In the case of Carillion we can see that is utterly and demonstrably false. How? In the simplest possible way – the company has gone bust." ...So who will pick up the tab for half-finished hospitals and un-met pension commitments? You and I will my friend, as taxpayers. The shareholders have lost their investment but beyond that their liability is limited.
"The problem is that we are all a little squeamish. Companies going out of business is part-and-parcel of how capitalism works – it is essential that there is both creativity and destruction. For individual workers whose pay and pensions depend on the continued success of the company, that is disruptive."" Distruptive?! The crassness of that last statement is incredible.
For a much better analysis of the PFI fiasco read Monbiot's article in today's Guardian.
There is a cost to taxpayers, when a big company fails. Welfare benefits get paid to unemployed workers, and creditors offset their bad debts against income. But that isn't nationalising losses. The shareholders have lost everything that they invested in the company, and nobody is going to reimburse them.
In the case of outsourcing public services though there is an additional cost to taxpayers of picking up the services or (for PFI) of completing the investment. Thus the risk of failure has not really been fully transferred to the private company.
Does anyone on PB seriously believe that outsourcing of essential public services has any long term future? The high-water mark for this foolishness is surely in the past.
If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab. 2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD. 3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP. 4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD. 5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab. 6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab. 7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab. 8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab. 2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD. 3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP. 4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD. 5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab. 6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab. 7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab. 8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
Apart from not liking the Tories, what else do Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens agree on ?
It's enough
Even joking, no it isn't - they may well all be closer to each other than the Tories (although frankly on some quite big issues I don't think that is true), but hypotheticals of such an alliance always make it seem like it would be easy just because they all dislike the Tories. Well they also dislike each other, to some degree, or they really would just be a single party, called the non-Tories, and as a supporter of minority parties doing well, I'd really like to think they care enough about ideology and policies enough that it would in fact be quite difficult to combine five different parties into one. It should be tough to negotiate an alliance, if the party labels are more than just fig leafs for hatred of one of the others. Honestly I am surprised the Tories and the DUP managed to come to an agreement so quickly, and even then its not much of one. Good if you can manage it, but if it is not to be subject to petty political whim, it would require a lot of tough talk and more than just hating someone else.
At Westminster, it's quite easy for Conservatives and DUP to align. The DUP are pretty much what the UUP were, 20 years ago.
As someone who voted for Brexit I'd be happy to see us scale back our military reach and craven attempts to maintain international influence. My reaction to the Remainers banging on about our supposed loss of influence was if only it were true. I don't recall Mr Meeks lauding this potential outcome though.
So Alastair was not "laughably wrong", in the premise of his article, then ?
If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab. 2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD. 3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP. 4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD. 5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab. 6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab. 7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab. 8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
Apart from not liking the Tories, what else do Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens agree on ?
It's enough
Even joking, no it isn't - they may well all be closer to each other than the Tories (although frankly on some quite big issues I don't think that is true), but hypotheticals of such an alliance always make it seem like it would be easy just because they all dislike the Tories. Well they also dislike each other, to some degree, or they really would just be a single party, called the non-Tories, and as a supporter of minority parties doing well, I'd really like to think they care enough about ideology and policies enough that it would in fact be quite difficult to combine five different parties into one. It should be tough to negotiate an alliance, if the party labels are more than just fig leafs for hatred of one of the others. Honestly I am surprised the Tories and the DUP managed to come to an agreement so quickly, and even then its not much of one. Good if you can manage it, but if it is not to be subject to petty political whim, it would require a lot of tough talk and more than just hating someone else.
At Westminster, it's quite easy for Conservatives and DUP to align. The DUP are pretty much what the UUP were, 20 years ago.
The other great advantage is that the Tories and the DUP do not compete with each other for votes. There are no Tory/DUP marginal seats.
Labour are pretty much in direct competition with SNP+LD+PC+Greens in many seats. They are competing for the same voters.
True (given it's the Guardian), but correct all the same.
The article is utter self-justifying tosh of the highest order and the only positive thing one can say about it is at least the Guardian is prepared to publish views at odds with it's natural ethos. Sections of it would stand-up well in the Daily Mash tbh.
"...profits, we are told sanctimoniously, are privatised, while risk remains nationalised. In the case of Carillion we can see that is utterly and demonstrably false. How? In the simplest possible way – the company has gone bust." ...So who will pick up the tab for half-finished hospitals and un-met pension commitments? You and I will my friend, as taxpayers. The shareholders have lost their investment but beyond that their liability is limited.
"The problem is that we are all a little squeamish. Companies going out of business is part-and-parcel of how capitalism works – it is essential that there is both creativity and destruction. For individual workers whose pay and pensions depend on the continued success of the company, that is disruptive."" Distruptive?! The crassness of that last statement is incredible.
For a much better analysis of the PFI fiasco read Monbiot's article in today's Guardian.
There is a cost to taxpayers, when a big company fails. Welfare benefits get paid to unemployed workers, and creditors offset their bad debts against income. But that isn't nationalising losses. The shareholders have lost everything that they invested in the company, and nobody is going to reimburse them.
In the case of outsourcing public services though there is an additional cost to taxpayers of picking up the services or (for PFI) of completing the investment. Thus the risk of failure has not really been fully transferred to the private company.
Does anyone on PB seriously believe that outsourcing of essential public services has any long term future? The high-water mark for this foolishness is surely in the past.
It depends what you're outsourcing. Carillion was principally a builder. Very few public sector organisations would wish to maintain lots of construction workers on their payroll, full time. It makes sense to hire a big building company to carry out projects, which in turn sub-contracts to smaller outfits, which hire the workers.
If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab. 2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD. 3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP. 4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD. 5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab. 6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab. 7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab. 8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
I suspect had such an arrangement come into being it would have already collapsed by now.
The SNP and Labour loathe each other traditionally - it wouldn't have been long before they fell out big time. And the SNP holding the UK to ransom would be much worse than the DUP doing so - as they would demand far more.
As someone who voted for Brexit I'd be happy to see us scale back our military reach and craven attempts to maintain international influence. My reaction to the Remainers banging on about our supposed loss of influence was if only it were true. I don't recall Mr Meeks lauding this potential outcome though.
So Alastair was not "laughably wrong", in the premise of his article, then ?
Yes he was. As of course he is about almost every aspect of the motivations behind those who voted Leave. He is blinded by his own bigotry.
True (given it's the Guardian), but correct all the same.
The article is utter self-justifying tosh of the highest order and the only positive thing one can say about it is at least the Guardian is prepared to publish views at odds with it's natural ethos. Sections of it would stand-up well in the Daily Mash tbh.
"...profits, we are told sanctimoniously, are privatised, while risk remains nationalised. In the case of Carillion we can see that is utterly and demonstrably false. How? In the simplest possible way – the company has gone bust." ...So who will pick up the tab for half-finished hospitals and un-met pension commitments? You and I will my friend, as taxpayers. The shareholders have lost their investment but beyond that their liability is limited.
"The problem is that we are all a little squeamish. Companies going out of business is part-and-parcel of how capitalism works – it is essential that there is both creativity and destruction. For individual workers whose pay and pensions depend on the continued success of the company, that is disruptive."" Distruptive?! The crassness of that last statement is incredible.
For a much better analysis of the PFI fiasco read Monbiot's article in today's Guardian.
There is a cost to taxpayers, when a big company fails. Welfare benefits get paid to unemployed workers, and creditors offset their bad debts against income. But that isn't nationalising losses. The shareholders have lost everything that they invested in the company, and nobody is going to reimburse them.
In the case of outsourcing public services though there is an additional cost to taxpayers of picking up the services or (for PFI) of completing the investment. Thus the risk of failure has not really been fully transferred to the private company.
Does anyone on PB seriously believe that outsourcing of essential public services has any long term future? The high-water mark for this foolishness is surely in the past.
It works perfectly well in many other first world countries including large parts of Europe.
The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
It was a vote to be connected with the world, but can we do it over Skype instead of letting people come here?
It was a vote to end political control by a backward organisation that represents only 6% of the world's population.
but 26% of world economic activity
vs. China currently 13%, USA 24%
Both the World Bank and IMF disagree with you. By their measure of GDP (PPP) China is well ahead of the EU. If you remove the UK from the EU figures so is the US.
The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
It was a vote to be connected with the world, but can we do it over Skype instead of letting people come here?
It was a vote to end political control by a backward organisation that represents only 6% of the world's population.
but 26% of world economic activity
vs. China currently 13%, USA 24%
Both the World Bank and IMF disagree with you. By their measure of GDP (PPP) China is well ahead of the EU. If you remove the UK from the EU figures so is the US.
Not sure where Wikipedia is getting its numbers but both the World Bank and IMF are clear that China is larger. And including the UK in the EU numbers is dumb when the discussion centred around the future of the UK outside the EU.
FWIW, I don't think the absolute level of military spending is the problem at all, and the idea that we should reduce it below 2% of GDP is foolish in an uncertain world. That we should abandon our desire to be able to project military power across the globe, other than in the most limited and pragmatic sense, seems entirely sensible, though.
As someone who voted for Brexit I'd be happy to see us scale back our military reach and craven attempts to maintain international influence. My reaction to the Remainers banging on about our supposed loss of influence was if only it were true. I don't recall Mr Meeks lauding this potential outcome though.
So Alastair was not "laughably wrong", in the premise of his article, then ?
Yes he was. As of course he is about almost every aspect of the motivations behind those who voted Leave. He is blinded by his own bigotry.
As someone who voted for Brexit I'd be happy to see us scale back our military reach and craven attempts to maintain international influence. My reaction to the Remainers banging on about our supposed loss of influence was if only it were true. I don't recall Mr Meeks lauding this potential outcome though.
So Alastair was not "laughably wrong", in the premise of his article, then ?
Yes he was. As of course he is about almost every aspect of the motivations behind those who voted Leave. He is blinded by his own bigotry.
Apparently not the only one.
Really. Care to explain? Or just making stuff up as usual.
True (given it's the Guardian), but correct all the same.
The article is utter self-justifying tosh of the highest order and the only positive thing one can say about it is at least the Guardian is prepared to publish views at odds with it's natural ethos. Sections of it would stand-up well in the Daily Mash tbh.
"...profits, we are told sanctimoniously, are privatised, while risk remains nationalised. In the case of Carillion we can see that is utterly and demonstrably false. How? In the simplest possible way – the company has gone bust." ...So who will pick up the tab for half-finished hospitals and un-met pension commitments? You and I will my friend, as taxpayers. The shareholders have lost their investment but beyond that their liability is limited.
"The problem is that we are all a little squeamish. Companies going out of business is part-and-parcel of how capitalism works – it is essential that there is both creativity and destruction. For individual workers whose pay and pensions depend on the continued success of the company, that is disruptive."" Distruptive?! The crassness of that last statement is incredible.
For a much better analysis of the PFI fiasco read Monbiot's article in today's Guardian.
There is a cost to taxpayers, when a big company fails. Welfare benefits get paid to unemployed workers, and creditors offset their bad debts against income. But that isn't nationalising losses. The shareholders have lost everything that they invested in the company, and nobody is going to reimburse them.
In the case of outsourcing public services though there is an additional cost to taxpayers of picking up the services or (for PFI) of completing the investment. Thus the risk of failure has not really been fully transferred to the private company.
Does anyone on PB seriously believe that outsourcing of essential public services has any long term future? The high-water mark for this foolishness is surely in the past.
Yes, I do. As I pointed out earlier, it seems stupid to assume that those who negotiated massively flawed PFI contracts would do much better setting up in house alternatives. Dogmatic approval or rejection of PFI is beside the point. How to improve both public and private administration is the issue.
VAR really is poor. Twice tonight players have been incorrectly flagged offside and on both occasions the ref has stopped the game rather than letting play go on.
As someone who voted for Brexit I'd be happy to see us scale back our military reach and craven attempts to maintain international influence. My reaction to the Remainers banging on about our supposed loss of influence was if only it were true. I don't recall Mr Meeks lauding this potential outcome though.
So Alastair was not "laughably wrong", in the premise of his article, then ?
Yes he was. As of course he is about almost every aspect of the motivations behind those who voted Leave. He is blinded by his own bigotry.
Apparently not the only one.
Really. Care to explain? Or just making stuff up as usual.
"...making stuff up as usual..." No, I think I'll let you try to work it out for yourself.
Yes, I do. As I pointed out earlier, it seems stupid to assume that those who negotiated massively flawed PFI contracts would do much better setting up in house alternatives. Dogmatic approval or rejection of PFI is beside the point. How to improve both public and private administration is the issue.
Look to Europe. Many countries in western Europe have smaller public sectors as a percentage of the workforce than the UK but seem to provide better levels of service. They have learnt how to control and effectively direct the private companies that do Government jobs.
Having been involved in outsourcing from both sides, I reckon good reasons for outsourcing are for staffing flexibility and to access expertise you don't already have. Otherwise you are usually better doing it yourself. You can get your outsourcer to take on the peaks and troughs rather than be either over- or under-staffed The other reason, to access expertise you don't already have, somewhat overlaps the first. If you do enough of it, it's worth getting the expertise in-house.
Several potential issues with outsourcing are: Lack of responsiveness - the outsourcers will do what they are contracted to do and won't respond to changing circumstances or take initiative. There's often a lack of joined up thinking and institutional memory. Workers, and particularly their managers, work for the company that employs them, not the client
As someone who voted for Brexit I'd be happy to see us scale back our military reach and craven attempts to maintain international influence. My reaction to the Remainers banging on about our supposed loss of influence was if only it were true. I don't recall Mr Meeks lauding this potential outcome though.
So Alastair was not "laughably wrong", in the premise of his article, then ?
Yes he was. As of course he is about almost every aspect of the motivations behind those who voted Leave. He is blinded by his own bigotry.
Apparently not the only one.
Really. Care to explain? Or just making stuff up as usual.
"...making stuff up as usual..." No, I think I'll let you try to work it out for yourself.
You mean you just made a dumb comment and hoped no one would pick you up on it. Seems about par for the course.
VAR really is poor. Twice tonight players have been incorrectly flagged offside and on both occasions the ref has stopped the game rather than letting play go on.
Also looked a penalty for Chelsea
From what I have seen so far I would scrap it unless it can be much improved
On the subject of turnout, this interesting paper makes the case that UK voter turnout may be 11.5% higher, and US 20% higher than conventional estimates:
VAR really is poor. Twice tonight players have been incorrectly flagged offside and on both occasions the ref has stopped the game rather than letting play go on.
Also looked a penalty for Chelsea
From what I have seen so far I would scrap it unless it can be much improved
I can understand why they didn't give the Willian one, but the one on Zappacosta in the first half was blatant.
The basic premise of Alistair's thread header - that Britain voted for isolationism with the Brexit vote - is so laughably wrong and inherently biased that everything that follows from that colossal mistaken assumption is simply a waste of words.
It was a vote to be connected with the world, but can we do it over Skype instead of letting people come here?
It was a vote to end political control by a backward organisation that represents only 6% of the world's population.
but 26% of world economic activity
vs. China currently 13%, USA 24%
Both the World Bank and IMF disagree with you. By their measure of GDP (PPP) China is well ahead of the EU. If you remove the UK from the EU figures so is the US.
If you want to measure economic might (size of the economy), current prices GDP is usually a more helpful measure. Wealth: normally PPP GDP per head.
If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab. 2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD. 3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP. 4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD. 5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab. 6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab. 7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab. 8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
And if 1022 people in eight different seats, Kensington, Dudley North, Newcastle UL, Crewe, Canterbury, Barrow, Keighley and Rutherglen, had voted the other way, Theresa May would have a majority.
Similarly if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
It requires a far smaller and more plausible swing for the Tories to have a biggish majority than the one Labour need for largest party status. A UNS of 3% gives a majority of 60 in addition to aviating porcines. To achieve a majority of one Corbyn needs over 4% and for some of his shadow cabinet other than Ashworth to look vaguely sane and competent for five minutes.
Given the number of seats with wafer thin majorities and changing demography, the big story of 2022 may well be December 1910 - many seats changing hands to finish more or less where we started.
Notice how Corbyn supporters put the Liberal Democrats in the Corbyn camp when totting up House of Commons numbers. How many of Corbyn's policies do you think the LDs would vote for?
It could not possibly go worse for them than jumping into bed with the Toxic Tories and that particularly rubbish austerity nonsense that they inflicted on us
The article is utter self-justifying tosh of the highest order and the only positive thing one can say about it is at least the Guardian is prepared to publish views at odds with it's natural ethos. Sections of it would stand-up well in the Daily Mash tbh.
"...profits, we are told sanctimoniously, are privatised, while risk remains nationalised. In the case of Carillion we can see that is utterly and demonstrably false. How? In the simplest possible way – the company has gone bust." ...So who will pick up the tab for half-finished hospitals and un-met pension commitments? You and I will my friend, as taxpayers. The shareholders have lost their investment but beyond that their liability is limited.
Well done, you understand the concept of limited liability. Let's now consider the case where a nationalised industry badly screws up, for example if the NHS botches an operation. Do you think that taxpayers' liability in this case is (a) Limited? or (b) Unlimited?
"The problem is that we are all a little squeamish. Companies going out of business is part-and-parcel of how capitalism works – it is essential that there is both creativity and destruction. For individual workers whose pay and pensions depend on the continued success of the company, that is disruptive."" Distruptive?! The crassness of that last statement is incredible.
Seems pretty realistic to me. The alternative is the jobs-for-life culture which (thank God) we finally rid ourselves of in the 1980s. And, of course, they weren't jobs-for-life, just jobs which collapsed in chaos when the absurdities became too overwhelming to sustain:
VAR really is poor. Twice tonight players have been incorrectly flagged offside and on both occasions the ref has stopped the game rather than letting play go on.
Also looked a penalty for Chelsea
From what I have seen so far I would scrap it unless it can be much improved
I saw the first ever VAR goal given, in the King Power stadium last night. VAR gave the right decision. No disruption to the flow of the game anymore than other stoppages.
Mind you, if ever there is a ref in need of VAR, it is John Moss. His match reffing Leicester vs West Ham was so poor that both sets of supporters were baying for his head in 2016.
If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
Apart from not liking the Tories, what else do Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens agree on ?
It's enough
would be easy just because they all dislike the Tories. Well they also dislike each other, to some degree, or they really would just be a single party, called the non-Tories, and as a supporter of minority parties doing well, I'd really like to think they care enough about ideology and policies enough that it would in fact be quite difficult to combine five different parties into one. managed to come to an agreement so quickly, and even then its not much of one. Good if you can manage it, but if it is not to be subject to petty political whim, it would require a lot of tough talk and more than just hating someone else.
At Westminster, it's quite easy for Conservatives and DUP to align. The DUP are pretty much what the UUP were, 20 years ago.
Arlene Foster = David Trimble?
I'm far from sure about Northern Ireland's long term future in the UK. Shared disgust at the IRA bound them in and Trimble/Hume were seen sympathetically in trying to bring peace to the place in spite of a terrorist minority. What now? A place that remains bitterly divided voting for politicians those on the mainland cannot comprehend. What happened to the UUP/SDLP? It continues to consume a not inconsiderable public subsidy largely due the refusal of the society to reform itself internally. And why should they? They've got a permanent economic subsidy on tap and it's even better with a hung parliament which gives them extra leverage - although they seem totally clueless as to how this looks to British taxpayers enduring the longest period of austerity in modern times. Conservatives used to be quite good at recognising the problem of subsidies and incentives.
There is a cost to taxpayers, when a big company fails. Welfare benefits get paid to unemployed workers, and creditors offset their bad debts against income. But that isn't nationalising losses. The shareholders have lost everything that they invested in the company, and nobody is going to reimburse them.
And the banks and bondholders will also take a stonking loss.
I must say out of those two characters I know who'd I'd much rather look after my pet dog....Osbo looks like he'd get the cream out, whereas I'd trust TM sort of.....
On the referendum Frank Luntz described Leave voters thus 'These people aren't on the extremes. The exact opposite. They love their country and they love their communities. And they jut want the rest of the world to leave them alone and let them live their lives.'
I must say out of those two characters I know who'd I'd much rather look after my pet dog....Osbo looks like he'd get the cream out, whereas I'd trust TM sort of.....
Only one would make a coat out of puppies...
It is a bit petty of May, and the sort of decision that sets precedent for her own fall from grace.
Just seen the Willian one again, definite penalty.
Watching it here in Norwich I just don't think so....
50/50
I have two locals near me in Norwich which I can just about reach holding my breath and legging it...the footie one is nailed on Brexit, and the gastro pub (listed in the Times within the Top Ten best Sunday lunches) is nailed on Remain.......
Guess which pub I go to for my daily constitutional?
I must say out of those two characters I know who'd I'd much rather look after my pet dog....Osbo looks like he'd get the cream out, whereas I'd trust TM sort of.....
Only one would make a coat out of puppies...
It is a bit petty of May, and the sort of decision that sets precedent for her own fall from grace.
Given Osborne stated he wanted to chop up May and put her in his fridge he can hardly have any complaints, though it may grate that Clegg got a peerage and he didn't.
No political capital from giving him a peerage for May either, Osborne is as equally loathed by the pro Brexit right as he is by the anti austerity Corbynista left, in fact the only people who have much time for him now are the Blairite and Cameroon diehard Remainers
Just seen the Willian one again, definite penalty.
Watching it here in Norwich I just don't think so....
50/50
I have two locals near me in Norwich which I can just about reach holding my breath and legging it...the footie one is nailed on Brexit, and the gastro pub (listed in the Times within the Top Ten best Sunday lunches) is nailed on Remain.......
Guess which pub I go to for my daily constitutional?
Just seen the Willian one again, definite penalty.
Watching it here in Norwich I just don't think so....
50/50
I have two locals near me in Norwich which I can just about reach holding my breath and legging it...the footie one is nailed on Brexit, and the gastro pub (listed in the Times within the Top Ten best Sunday lunches) is nailed on Remain.......
Guess which pub I go to for my daily constitutional?
The Red Lion?
The Eaton Cottage is the footie pub, and the Warwick Social is the foodie place....
You buy a house. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate, but it's your problem.
You buy a flat. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and the block needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate. Is it someone else's problem?
I have never forgiven vile, disgusting Chelsea fans for making me want Man Utd win a match...the only other thing that has made me want Utd to win a match was a terrorist atrocity (the UEFA final last summer)....
True (given it's the Guardian), but correct all the same.
The article is utter self-justifying tosh of the highest order and the only positive thing one can say about it is at least the Guardian is prepared to publish views at odds with it's natural ethos. Sections of it would stand-up well in the Daily Mash tbh.
"...profits, we are told sanctimoniously, are privatised, while risk remains nationalised. In the case of Carillion we can see that is utterly and demonstrably false. How? In the simplest possible way – the company has gone bust." ...So who will pick up the tab for half-finished hospitals and un-met pension commitments? You and I will my friend, as taxpayers. The shareholders have lost their investment but beyond that their liability is limited.
"The problem is that we are all a little squeamish. Companies going out of business is part-and-parcel of how capitalism works – it is essential that there is both creativity and destruction. For individual workers whose pay and pensions depend on the continued success of the company, that is disruptive."" Distruptive?! The crassness of that last statement is incredible.
For a much better analysis of the PFI fiasco read Monbiot's article in today's Guardian.
I’d fall in between those camps. Credit to the guardian for having both sides of the debate. Ideally - we should have a system where, when a company goes bust, it is merely disruptive for the worker. It will be like that for senior workers - but probably not at all for Moreno junior employees. (As an aside - I can’t imagine this will damage the career of Carillion senior staff at all - except for maybe a very few at the top).
Similarly his defence that this episode shows the taxpayer got excellent value for money is pretty dubious. It sounds as though their pfi contracts were profitable - it’s the aggressive expansion in new territories which has hurt them. Presumably McTernan would not accept that all the other pfi contracts are bad value because those companies haven’t gone bust!?
You buy a house. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate, but it's your problem.
You buy a flat. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and the block needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate. Is it someone else's problem?
You buy a house. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate, but it's your problem.
You buy a flat. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and the block needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate. Is it someone else's problem?
Not sure if this is any different to the massive leaseholder charges local authorities made owners pay in the past. This is the risk of buying a flat in a high rise block. Most new builds will have an NHBC guarantee for major structural problems for 10 years - but that probably doesn't cover cladding issues.
If you don't want the risk of such problems don't buy a flat in a high rise block. In entirely privately owned blocks the management company manages it - but all the funds for repairs, lifts, cleaning etc come from the private leaseholders. It's a racket - so it's not unique to this case.
While Grenfell was a tragic incident we also forget the council and the Tenant management body had spent around £70,000 per flat on improvement works. Lack of money doesn't seem to have been the issue - cutting corners and poor quality of the works appears to have been. We await what the inquires come up with.
You buy a house. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate, but it's your problem.
You buy a flat. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and the block needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate. Is it someone else's problem?
Just seen the Willian one again, definite penalty.
Watching it here in Norwich I just don't think so....
50/50
I have two locals near me in Norwich which I can just about reach holding my breath and legging it...the footie one is nailed on Brexit, and the gastro pub (listed in the Times within the Top Ten best Sunday lunches) is nailed on Remain.......
Guess which pub I go to for my daily constitutional?
The Red Lion?
The Eaton Cottage is the footie pub, and the Warwick Social is the foodie place....
The Red Lion is a bit far....
I have had a pint in the Eaton Cottage, with Fox jr when he lived on Portland st.
It was quite OK. Bit of an old school boozer really.
You buy a house. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate, but it's your problem.
You buy a flat. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and the block needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate. Is it someone else's problem?
Well yes, and it's quite possible that the work was done after people had bought their flats. I was simplifying things to focus in on the 'someone else must have to pay' angle. In this particular case, I don't know whether the freeholder is liable, but it's a question of law, not some scandal of wicked capitalists.
You buy a house. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate, but it's your problem.
You buy a flat. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and the block needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate. Is it someone else's problem?
Who is at fault? Either landlord/developer for not meeting a standard... Or govt for not having the right standard. That’s who should pay.
In reality No one is going to pay that money in 6 weeks unless the company has very deep pockets. Govt should try to broker some kind of deal.
That's my point. It's almost certainly no-one's 'fault' (except perhaps whoever signed off the work as meeting fire regulations, and even that is dubious, since the regulations seem to have been wrongly drawn up, or wrongly interpreted by the whole industry). In the meantime the work needs to be done. If we were talking about a freehold house, whose 'fault' would it be? Not the owner's, but the owner would be the one paying up.
You buy a house. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate, but it's your problem.
You buy a flat. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and the block needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate. Is it someone else's problem?
Well yes, and it's quite possible that the work was done after people had bought their flats. I was simplifying things to focus in on the 'someone else must have to pay' angle. In this particular case, I don't know whether the freeholder is liable, but it's a question of law, not some scandal of wicked capitalists.
The freeholder of the flat block seems to me to be the one that should pay here, I imagine it will go to court and is a matter of law as you say. This seems to be a good reason flats should always be leasehold with the ground rent NOT being peppercorn as there will always be communal areas and the general exterior to maintain.
If 961 people had voted differently at the 2017 general election, Corbyn would have had a good chance of being prime minister now as head of a "progressive alliance", (assuming Sinn Fein weren't taking their seats).
1. Southampton Itchen: would have been Lab if 16 Con voters had voted Lab. 2. Richmond Park: would have been LD if 23 Con voters had voted LD. 3. Stirling: would have been SNP if 75 Con voters had voted SNP. 4. St Ives: would have been LD if 157 Con voters had voted LD. 5. Pudsey: would have been Lab if 166 Con voters had voted Lab. 6. Hastings & Rye: would have been Lab if 174 Con voters had voted Lab. 7. Chipping Barnet: would have been Lab if 177 Con voters had voted Lab. 8. Thurrock: would have been Lab if 173 Con voters had voted Lab.
Lab+SNP+LD+PC+Greens = 322, a majority in the HoC if Sinn Fein don't take their seats.
And if 1022 people in eight different seats, Kensington, Dudley North, Newcastle UL, Crewe, Canterbury, Barrow, Keighley and Rutherglen, had voted the other way, Theresa May would have a majority.
Similarly if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
It requires a far smaller and more plausible swing for the Tories to have a biggish majority than the one Labour need for largest party status. A UNS of 3% gives a majority of 60 in addition to aviating porcines. To achieve a majority of one Corbyn needs over 4% and for some of his shadow cabinet other than Ashworth to look vaguely sane and competent for five minutes.
Given the number of seats with wafer thin majorities and changing demography, the big story of 2022 may well be December 1910 - many seats changing hands to finish more or less where we started.
Notice how Corbyn supporters put the Liberal Democrats in the Corbyn camp when totting up House of Commons numbers. How many of Corbyn's policies do you think the LDs would vote for?
It could not possibly go worse for them than jumping into bed with the Toxic Tories and that particularly rubbish austerity nonsense that they inflicted on us
A comparatively rare moment when I agree with you. If they swallowed tuition fees, I can't imagine they'll jib at Corbyn's nationalisation programme and savage welfare cuts.
However, I simply cannot see a coalition of more than two parties lasting for more than a few months. There are too many things that could go wrong. Five would be more unstable than a blancmange balanced on Bill Clinton's head while Monica Lewinsky was in the room.
You buy a house. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate, but it's your problem.
You buy a flat. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and the block needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate. Is it someone else's problem?
Well yes, and it's quite possible that the work was done after people had bought their flats. I was simplifying things to focus in on the 'someone else must have to pay' angle. In this particular case, I don't know whether the freeholder is liable, but it's a question of law, not some scandal of wicked capitalists.
The freeholder of the flat block seems to me to be the one that should pay here, I imagine it will go to court and is a matter of law as you say. This seems to be a good reason flats should always be leasehold with the ground rent NOT being peppercorn as there will always be communal areas and the general exterior to maintain.
I would suggest this is a legal minefield that will end up being tested in Court.
Personally I would expect the freeholder to have a duty of care to ensure the safety of the leaseholders and cannot just duck that duty.
However, most leases require the tenants to maintain their property including in a fire safe manner.
On the referendum Frank Luntz described Leave voters thus 'These people aren't on the extremes. The exact opposite. They love their country and they love their communities. And they jut want the rest of the world to leave them alone and let them live their lives.'
Isolationism? Sort of.
The worst you can say is that is unrealistic. There is certainly nothing morally wrong about such a viewpoint.
I take it Boy George's fan club will be even nastier than usual about Theresa on here tomorrow?
Why? She's a dead woman walking, whilst his reputation as one of the most successful finance ministers of his generation is undisputed.
Apart from his inheritance tax cut I would not even say he was the most successful finance minister of this Tory government let alone his generation, Hammond has proved better in my view and less willing to give Corbyn ammunition
It doesn't sound that great a snub - while his present actions seem to suggest he is not interested in being an MP again, he's a young man and anything can happen so why close the door for the sake of a peerage, when he has plenty of time to get one later if he wants.
It doesn't sound that great a snub - while his present actions seem to suggest he is not interested in being an MP again, he's a young man and anything can happen so why close the door for the sake of a peerage, when he has plenty of time to get one later if he wants.
And he gets a perfectly good baronetcy in due course anyway, if he plays his cards right.
Former Armed Forces minister exposes shocking military cuts and issues dire warning on UK’s fading power
The senior Tory has spoken out for the first time since stepping down because 'enough was enough'
THE former Armed Forces minister lifts the lid on shocking military shortfalls on operations - as he issues a dire warning about Britain’s fading prowess.
Sir Mike Penning has told The Sun that the UK is on the verge of “no longer being taken seriously” around the globe because defence has been cut “to the bone”.
Comments
The risk for May (and the Conservatives) is that if Brexit completes but is poor, and May stays, but Corbyn goes, and a more savvy traditional Left figure takes over, their vote falls back from 42% to 34-35%, with a dissipation to UKIP, LDs and NOTA. Labour win decent majority on 41-42%.
Both parties are at the mercy of events, but can also play their leadership, policy and messaging, cards very well, or very badly.
I'd recommend the Conservatives avoid Nick Timothy.
In the case of outsourcing public services though there is an additional cost to taxpayers of picking up the services or (for PFI) of completing the investment. Thus the risk of failure has not really been fully transferred to the private company.
Does anyone on PB seriously believe that outsourcing of essential public services has any long term future? The high-water mark for this foolishness is surely in the past.
Labour are pretty much in direct competition with SNP+LD+PC+Greens in many seats. They are competing for the same voters.
https://www.thebalance.com/world-s-largest-economy-3306044
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
Also 'the EU' is the EU-28 until at least March 2019 and I was referring to the current organisation.
That we should abandon our desire to be able to project military power across the globe, other than in the most limited and pragmatic sense, seems entirely sensible, though.
In any event, the world is becoming a strange place even through a military lens, where nations can host the military bases of all the world's competing major powers:
https://www.politico.eu/blogs/the-coming-wars/2018/01/the-most-valuable-military-real-estate-in-the-world/
As I pointed out earlier, it seems stupid to assume that those who negotiated massively flawed PFI contracts would do much better setting up in house alternatives.
Dogmatic approval or rejection of PFI is beside the point. How to improve both public and private administration is the issue.
No, I think I'll let you try to work it out for yourself.
Several potential issues with outsourcing are: Lack of responsiveness - the outsourcers will do what they are contracted to do and won't respond to changing circumstances or take initiative. There's often a lack of joined up thinking and institutional memory. Workers, and particularly their managers, work for the company that employs them, not the client
From what I have seen so far I would scrap it unless it can be much improved
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3098436
Interesting implications both for political parties and for political punters.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLN7rIby9s George Monbiot! 'Nuff said.
Mind you, if ever there is a ref in need of VAR, it is John Moss. His match reffing Leicester vs West Ham was so poor that both sets of supporters were baying for his head in 2016.
I'm far from sure about Northern Ireland's long term future in the UK. Shared disgust at the IRA bound them in and Trimble/Hume were seen sympathetically in trying to bring peace to the place in spite of a terrorist minority. What now? A place that remains bitterly divided voting for politicians those on the mainland cannot comprehend. What happened to the UUP/SDLP? It continues to consume a not inconsiderable public subsidy largely due the refusal of the society to reform itself internally. And why should they? They've got a permanent economic subsidy on tap and it's even better with a hung parliament which gives them extra leverage - although they seem totally clueless as to how this looks to British taxpayers enduring the longest period of austerity in modern times. Conservatives used to be quite good at recognising the problem of subsidies and incentives.
It was invented for this moment.
Isolationism? Sort of.
It is a bit petty of May, and the sort of decision that sets precedent for her own fall from grace.
Guess which pub I go to for my daily constitutional?
No political capital from giving him a peerage for May either, Osborne is as equally loathed by the pro Brexit right as he is by the anti austerity Corbynista left, in fact the only people who have much time for him now are the Blairite and Cameroon diehard Remainers
The Red Lion is a bit far....
You buy a flat. It turns out that it is a dangerous fire risk and the block needs urgent work which will cost a fortune. It's very unfortunate. Is it someone else's problem?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/17/citiscape-croydon-2m-recladding-bill-prompted-grenfell-disaster
Come on the Canaries......
Ideally - we should have a system where, when a company goes bust, it is merely disruptive for the worker. It will be like that for senior workers - but probably not at all for Moreno junior employees. (As an aside - I can’t imagine this will damage the career of Carillion senior staff at all - except for maybe a very few at the top).
Similarly his defence that this episode shows the taxpayer got excellent value for money is pretty dubious. It sounds as though their pfi contracts were profitable - it’s the aggressive expansion in new territories which has hurt them. Presumably McTernan would not accept that all the other pfi contracts are bad value because those companies haven’t gone bust!?
If you don't want the risk of such problems don't buy a flat in a high rise block. In entirely privately owned blocks the management company manages it - but all the funds for repairs, lifts, cleaning etc come from the private leaseholders. It's a racket - so it's not unique to this case.
While Grenfell was a tragic incident we also forget the council and the Tenant management body had spent around £70,000 per flat on improvement works. Lack of money doesn't seem to have been the issue - cutting corners and poor quality of the works appears to have been. We await what the inquires come up with.
Lucky, lucky Chelsea...
Or govt for not having the right standard. That’s who should pay.
In reality No one is going to pay that money in 6 weeks unless the company has very deep pockets.
Govt should try to broker some kind of deal.
It was quite OK. Bit of an old school boozer really.
This seems to be a good reason flats should always be leasehold with the ground rent NOT being peppercorn as there will always be communal areas and the general exterior to maintain.
However, I simply cannot see a coalition of more than two parties lasting for more than a few months. There are too many things that could go wrong. Five would be more unstable than a blancmange balanced on Bill Clinton's head while Monica Lewinsky was in the room.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/953760184752623616
Personally I would expect the freeholder to have a duty of care to ensure the safety of the leaseholders and cannot just duck that duty.
However, most leases require the tenants to maintain their property including in a fire safe manner.
Very distressing for the tenants though
(I couldn't find @Casino_Royale's ancestor, though).
George Osborne CH wouldn't be keen on going to the Lords.
If he became a Lord he'd have to declare all his outside income, not going to happen.
Plus these new working peers are meant to ensure the government wins all the Brexit votes in the Lords, making Ozzy a peer for that isn't a good idea.
He won't obstruct Brexit in the Lords, he just won't vote for it either.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/953755429112369152
*Well not that bad, but you get the gist.
https://twitter.com/ianmakgill/status/953676640911024129
I presume she has copies of the texts she sent to prove her side of the story?
Odd though given Bolton is facing a no confidence vote from the UKIP NEC this weekend that he would choose to have dinner publicly with his ex?
Will Rifkind and Straw get one this time? They would surely be certainties given the positions they held or has the media sting still ruled them out?