Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If not May, then who?

124

Comments

  • What in the name of holy chuffing buggery have they done to the Paddy Power website?

    "mobile first" is the new black in the big bad world of web design.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    FPT

    Mike Smithson said 'Certainly LAB was helped last year by the very long, seven week, election campaign which meant that the period under which the broadcasting balance rules prevailed was far longer than usual. That won’t happen in 2022. Even if the election is earlier the campaign period will be far far shorter.'
    I really do not understand what lies behind that comment.Under the terms of the FTPA there now have to be at least 5 weeks between Dissolution and Polling Day. Any election announcement is likely to be at least a week in advance of a Dissolution so the campaign would still effectively be at least 6 weeks.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sean_F said:

    See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.

    I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief

    I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.

    At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes

    Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.

    At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).

    At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.

    It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
    Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
    Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
    I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.

    "Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."

    https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-approach/private-sector
    They place far more emphasis on the redistribution of wealth than they do the creation of wealth.
    Because it is easier to redistribute wealth than create wealth. To redistribute, all you need to do is contact the movers and shakers (mainly politicians and influential media types) and persuade them to throw a little money in the direction of your good cause. In the meantime, you get a nice salary, the rosy glow of doing charitable work and go to lots of nice lunches.

    Creating wealth, on the other hand, involves lots of messy, hard work and significant risk.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    stevef said:

    Johnson has personality and wit, but he lacks gravitas, comes over as a buffoon, is detested by Remainers, and crucially he looks like a British Donald Trump. Subliminally that would harm him in a general election campaign, especially if they were ever filmed together. In TV debates he tends to bluster rather than reason, and would be a gift to Corbyn.

    Dominic Raab is charismatic, articulate, looks prime ministerial, is very good on TV, good at thinking on his feet, and is a Leaver, so is able to own post Brexit.

    Suspend disbelief if you need to, but imagine Brexit doesn't happen. If so, the Tories will need someone who can reunite the party, and lead Brexiteers towards acceptance of that outcome. Which of the two above would be best placed to do that, or would it be someone else?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sean_F said:

    See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.

    I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief

    I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.

    At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes

    Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.

    At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).

    At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.

    It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
    Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
    Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
    I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.

    "Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."

    https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-approach/private-sector
    They conflate inequality within developed countries and inequality globally and pump out very disingenuous polemics about capitalism.

    https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/economy-99
    It’s a bit gimmicky - but then they are trying to raise money/encourage movements.
    The basic point that a small number of people own a ridiculous amount of wealth is true.
    I would have thought that drawing attention to the good work they do would be sufficient rather than presenting themselves as the Greenpeace of economics.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sean_F said:

    See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.

    I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief

    I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.

    At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes

    Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.

    At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).

    At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.

    It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
    Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
    Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
    I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.

    "Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."

    https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-approach/private-sector
    They place far more emphasis on the redistribution of wealth than they do the creation of wealth.
    Yes I think that’s fair - they are a charity after all.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited February 2018

    stevef said:

    Johnson has personality and wit, but he lacks gravitas, comes over as a buffoon, is detested by Remainers, and crucially he looks like a British Donald Trump. Subliminally that would harm him in a general election campaign, especially if they were ever filmed together. In TV debates he tends to bluster rather than reason, and would be a gift to Corbyn.

    Dominic Raab is charismatic, articulate, looks prime ministerial, is very good on TV, good at thinking on his feet, and is a Leaver, so is able to own post Brexit.

    Suspend disbelief if you need to, but imagine Brexit doesn't happen. If so, the Tories will need someone who can reunite the party, and lead Brexiteers towards acceptance of that outcome. Which of the two above would be best placed to do that, or would it be someone else?
    I wonder when will you come around to the idea that Brexit will happen, William? I mean, you keep suggesting these are all excellent steps towards your dream of a united europe - but I wonder what will be the line in the sand which will convince you otherwise?
  • Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."

    Does this even sound right ?

    When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.

    And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.

    This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.

    The new employers should have checked back directly with the previous employer (Oxfam) for references. Perhaps they did and Oxfam just provided non commital responses.
  • Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."

    Does this even sound right ?

    When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.

    And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.

    This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.

    The new employers should have checked back directly with the previous employer (Oxfam) for references. Perhaps they did and Oxfam just provided non commital responses.
    A lot of employers now will only confirm names and dates; job titles if you are lucky.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,728

    Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."

    Does this even sound right ?

    When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.

    And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.

    This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.

    The new employers should have checked back directly with the previous employer (Oxfam) for references. Perhaps they did and Oxfam just provided non commital responses.
    A lot of employers now will only confirm names and dates; job titles if you are lucky.
    Capita, for one. That's why employers should ask for character references as well.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    rkrkrk said:

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sean_F said:

    See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.

    I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief

    I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.

    At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes

    Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.

    At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).

    At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.

    It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
    Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
    Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
    I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.

    "Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."

    https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-approach/private-sector
    They place far more emphasis on the redistribution of wealth than they do the creation of wealth.
    Yes I think that’s fair - they are a charity after all.
    Unfortunately the redistribution they seem most focussed on is from the collection tin into their back pockets.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sean_F said:

    See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.

    I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief

    I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.

    At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes

    Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.

    At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).

    At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.

    It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
    Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
    Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
    I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.

    "Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."

    https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-approach/private-sector
    They place far more emphasis on the redistribution of wealth than they do the creation of wealth.
    Who was it that said you don’t make the poor richer by making the rich poorer? Art Laffer?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    rkrkrk said:

    Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."

    Does this even sound right ?

    When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.

    And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.

    This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.

    I think four of them were fired - imagine they were those who did the wrongdoing.
    Some of the organisations I’ve worked for have no reference policies - but how can you stop someone privately writing a reference for someone else? They aren’t going to tell you...

    I’m not clear on why the police were not involved - either in Haiti or back here if the individuals are British.
    I think the real criticism is that the most senior person was allowed to resign.

    Because he was allowed to resign, the disciplinary action stops.

    And so the abuser can be rehired by another organisation (the Universities have run into similar problems with sexual harassers, and been similarly criticised).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    rkrkrk said:

    Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."

    Does this even sound right ?

    When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.

    And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.

    This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.

    I think four of them were fired - imagine they were those who did the wrongdoing.
    Some of the organisations I’ve worked for have no reference policies - but how can you stop someone privately writing a reference for someone else? They aren’t going to tell you...

    I’m not clear on why the police were not involved - either in Haiti or back here if the individuals are British.
    I think the real criticism is that the most senior person was allowed to resign.

    Because he was allowed to resign, the disciplinary action stops.

    And so the abuser can be rehired by another organisation (the Universities have run into similar problems with sexual harassers, and been similarly criticised).
    The same thing has been seen in local councils, with people being allowed to resign in the face of disciplinary action before popping up again somewhere else in a similar role. It all sounds rather like the 1970s Catholic Church - and very different from a bawdy dinner party that raised hundreds of thousands for charity.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    On topic Hunt seems to me to be the man in pole position right now. He is good with interviews, calm and measured and not particularly ideological. Holding the Tories together is not going to be easy but he is capable of doing it.

    If May holds on for another 2 or 3 years as looks increasingly likely the field is obviously much more wide open. On current trends Boris and DD will be old news by then. Hunt holds a dangerous job although the way he came through the January flu crisis is another example of his ability to deal with difficult issues. It is up to the others to make their mark.

    Raab needs to be seen as the person dealing with our housing crisis. We should be seeing him on new housing schemes every week (ideally with less obviously new footwear), both public and private, driving house building to new levels. He has the advantage that house building had a very strong year in 2017 but there is a lot more to do. I would be surprised in May's departure did not come too soon for him but its up to him to be front and central in an area the government needs to be seen to be delivering on.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited February 2018
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."

    Does this even sound right ?

    When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.

    And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.

    This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.

    I think four of them were fired - imagine they were those who did the wrongdoing.
    Some of the organisations I’ve worked for have no reference policies - but how can you stop someone privately writing a reference for someone else? They aren’t going to tell you...

    I’m not clear on why the police were not involved - either in Haiti or back here if the individuals are British.
    I think the real criticism is that the most senior person was allowed to resign.

    Because he was allowed to resign, the disciplinary action stops.

    And so the abuser can be rehired by another organisation (the Universities have run into similar problems with sexual harassers, and been similarly criticised).
    The same thing has been seen in local councils, with people being allowed to resign in the face of disciplinary action before popping up again somewhere else in a similar role. It all sounds rather like the 1970s Catholic Church - and very different from a bawdy dinner party that raised hundreds of thousands for charity.
    I've been concerned about the whole disciplinary system with regard to settlement agreements and references for future positions for a while.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    Makes you wonder if McDonnell has ever personally taken out a loan for anything, ever....
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    I am not sure what he means.

    "Speaking before the speech on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr McDonnell said taking services into public ownership could be achieved at no cost to the taxpayer by swapping government bonds for company shares.

    "It would be cost free. You borrow to buy an asset and when that asset is producing profits like the water industry does, that will cover your borrowing cost," he said."

    Why does he need to borrow if he is printing warrants, rather than handing out money, to get his hands on the shares?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sean_F said:

    See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.

    I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief

    I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.

    At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes

    Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.

    At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).

    At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.

    It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
    Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
    Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
    I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.

    "Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."

    https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-approach/private-sector
    They place far more emphasis on the redistribution of wealth than they do the creation of wealth.
    Yes I think that’s fair - they are a charity after all.
    Unfortunately the redistribution they seem most focussed on is from the collection tin into their back pockets.
    They do good work.
    Their employees get paid less than they could make in other industries.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,728
    Ishmael_Z said:


    I am not sure what he means.

    You almost certainly have that in common with John Macdonnell.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Ishmael_Z said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    I am not sure what he means.

    "Speaking before the speech on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr McDonnell said taking services into public ownership could be achieved at no cost to the taxpayer by swapping government bonds for company shares.

    "It would be cost free. You borrow to buy an asset and when that asset is producing profits like the water industry does, that will cover your borrowing cost," he said."

    Why does he need to borrow if he is printing warrants, rather than handing out money, to get his hands on the shares?
    McDonnell's biggest political problem seems to be that he doesn't see the obvious limitations of his own plans. This is an absolute open goal for a Tory heavy hitter to hit back. Fallon would have been the obvious choice a few months ago. Who now? Probably Hunt. Getting back on to topic, this probably points to where the leadership is heading apres Mme May.

    "Anyone who has ever taken out a loan knows from personal experience....."
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Hammond not even worth a mention

    He’s not got a hope. He would have been a good Chief Secretary but that should have been his limit
    The Tory CoE not got a hope of leadership ? I doubt you'll find a better illustration of what's wrong with this government.
    He’s been overpromoted. It happens.
    And yet, unsackable. The CoE should always be a potential leader, otherwise they shouldn't have the job.
    Not necessarily. The best governments have a team at the top
    The person in charge of the nations finances not even a long shot for the top job? Something is wrong.
    Different skills are needed.
    Move along, nothing to see here. Sorry,not buying it.
    Not really. Just saying Hammond’s not the right person to by PM. It’s not unusual to have senior politicians who have to be in the Cabinet
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,728
    rkrkrk said:

    They do good work.
    Their employees get paid less than they could make in other industries.

    If they want to continue to do so should Oxfam go belly up, there is a serious shortage of maths teachers.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sean_F said:

    Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
    Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
    I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.

    "Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."

    https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-approach/private-sector
    They place far more emphasis on the redistribution of wealth than they do the creation of wealth.
    Yes I think that’s fair - they are a charity after all.
    Unfortunately the redistribution they seem most focussed on is from the collection tin into their back pockets.
    They do good work.
    Their employees get paid less than they could make in other industries.
    I used to believe that too. Oxfam is going to be horribly damaged by this and the Charity sector as a whole is going to take another serious hit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    On topic: a Hunt / Gove ticket would be unstoppable. And, Hunt is the only one capable of beating Johnson.

    That is all.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,728
    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    He is spending money like water :smiley:
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2l5IKeO-9I

    2 hours 18 minutes and 50 seconds in. Smile wiped off Cameron's face.

    “We should be proud that, in these islands, we trust the people with these big decisions”
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    They do good work.
    Their employees get paid less than they could make in other industries.

    If they want to continue to do so should Oxfam go belly up, there is a serious shortage of maths teachers.
    Do you need a maths degree to be a maths teacher?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,728
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    They do good work.
    Their employees get paid less than they could make in other industries.

    If they want to continue to do so should Oxfam go belly up, there is a serious shortage of maths teachers.
    Do you need a maths degree to be a maths teacher?
    I believe a pulse is sufficient.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    Cost free is not a great message I suspect. It’s too easy for people to say it will cost £90bn or whatever. His point that the borrowing cost can be covered by the ‘profits’ is true but he will struggle to get a hearing.

    He should say “will save money” I reckon.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113

    I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
    Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.

    This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited February 2018
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    He is spending money like water :smiley:
    Perhaps he should rebase the Pound, not on gold, but on water. That way, every time it rains the Treasury will have more to spend........ :confounded:
  • ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    They do good work.
    Their employees get paid less than they could make in other industries.

    If they want to continue to do so should Oxfam go belly up, there is a serious shortage of maths teachers.
    Do you need a maths degree to be a maths teacher?
    I believe a pulse is sufficient.
    Though remembering the somewhat desiccated Mr Flett from my school days, not always required.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
    Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.

    This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
    I know the damage to business is real. My business has now closed.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    No it isn't. The Government borrowed real cash folding money, and lent it to the universities. McD is proposing a straight share for bond swap, with no payment of money involved. OK he has to pay the coupon on the bonds, but he's doing that out of profits. So what is he borrowing?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    He is spending money like water :smiley:
    Perhaps he should rebase the Pound, not on gold, but on water. That way, every time it rains the Treasury will have more to spend........ :confounded:
    It would be interesting to see a - somehow unbiased - comparator of the effect of Labour policy vs Brexit.

    It’s possible that Labour’s programme of mass nationalisation and tax rises is significantly less harmful than the current government’s one and only policy.

    Of course, it’s an unfair comparison, as Corbyn is promising both a far left economic programme AND Brexit.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    The cost of nationalising the water industry by swapping loans for assets is estimated to be £90b.

    The Student Loan Debt is estimated to be over £100b.

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jun/15/uk-student-loan-debt-soars-to-more-than £100bn

    The Government has borrowed that £100b to pay Universities (via students) by issuing loans but has kept it off the deficit and debt by balancing it against the student debt asset.

    The Government should be pleased that McDonnell is following their lead. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    No it isn't. The Government borrowed real cash folding money, and lent it to the universities. McD is proposing a straight share for bond swap, with no payment of money involved. OK he has to pay the coupon on the bonds, but he's doing that out of profits. So what is he borrowing?
    Both deals involve setting loans against assets to avoid adding to the deficit and debt. There are no suitcases of folding money involved.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Barnesian said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    No it isn't. The Government borrowed real cash folding money, and lent it to the universities. McD is proposing a straight share for bond swap, with no payment of money involved. OK he has to pay the coupon on the bonds, but he's doing that out of profits. So what is he borrowing?
    Both deals involve setting loans against assets to avoid adding to the deficit and debt. There are no suitcases of folding money involved.
    No they don't. The universities got money - admittedly probably not in used notes, contrary to my frivolous suggestion, but in pounds Sterling. McD's proposal is that shares should be swapped for bonds. What cash payment is the government making, that it needs a loan for?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Mortimer said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    I am not sure what he means.

    "Speaking before the speech on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr McDonnell said taking services into public ownership could be achieved at no cost to the taxpayer by swapping government bonds for company shares.

    "It would be cost free. You borrow to buy an asset and when that asset is producing profits like the water industry does, that will cover your borrowing cost," he said."

    Why does he need to borrow if he is printing warrants, rather than handing out money, to get his hands on the shares?
    McDonnell's biggest political problem seems to be that he doesn't see the obvious limitations of his own plans. This is an absolute open goal for a Tory heavy hitter to hit back. Fallon would have been the obvious choice a few months ago. Who now? Probably Hunt. Getting back on to topic, this probably points to where the leadership is heading apres Mme May.

    "Anyone who has ever taken out a loan knows from personal experience....."
    Apart from him being a bit odious, speaking as someone not intrinsically opposed to things like nationalisation, my issue with the way McDonnell presents these types of things is he oversells it and suggests we can get some truly marvellous returns literally at no cost the way he sometimes describes it, and I find it very hard to believe if it was so obviously magnificent and, importantly, cost free, that there would have been any opposition to the ideas at all, and therefore there must be lots he isn't telling, or is wrong about.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
    Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.

    This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
    I export all around the world, as do many others on this site.

    And actually opinion, or rather, the honouring the way people voted, is more important than the effects on an export business. Otherwise democracy has failed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited February 2018
    One side effect of McDonnell mouthing off about nationalisation, is that between now and the next election the water companies are going to spend as little as they can get away with on long term planning and infrastructure, and as much effort as possible on pumping their own share price in the short term.

    The biggest argument against nationalisation is that infrastructure spending becomes a political decision, rather than simply a company investing in their own future. That and the unions. Ask anyone who remembers the ‘70s and ‘80s.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    rkrkrk said:

    Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."

    Does this even sound right ?

    When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.

    And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.

    This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.

    I think four of them were fired - imagine they were those who did the wrongdoing.
    Some of the organisations I’ve worked for have no reference policies - but how can you stop someone privately writing a reference for someone else? They aren’t going to tell you...

    I’m not clear on why the police were not involved - either in Haiti or back here if the individuals are British.
    What crimes are alleged? Don't know about Haiti, but prostitution is not a crime here if those involved are over 18.
  • Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    Except why would they be income earning assets if not run as a business ... and if they are run as a business then what's the point?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,552
    John_M said:

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oxfan is only a chairity in name.

    Huge plush HQ, mega salaries, political lobbying.

    Time May took a leaf out of "The Donald" play book and drained the swamp. London makes Washington look like a kindergarden.
    So Trump has "drained the swamp"?
    I think it's a euphemism for 'sleeping with a porn actress'.
    So perhaps not the best advice for Mrs. May ?

  • Ishmael_Z said:

    Barnesian said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    No it isn't. The Government borrowed real cash folding money, and lent it to the universities. McD is proposing a straight share for bond swap, with no payment of money involved. OK he has to pay the coupon on the bonds, but he's doing that out of profits. So what is he borrowing?
    Both deals involve setting loans against assets to avoid adding to the deficit and debt. There are no suitcases of folding money involved.
    No they don't. The universities got money - admittedly probably not in used notes, contrary to my frivolous suggestion, but in pounds Sterling. McD's proposal is that shares should be swapped for bonds. What cash payment is the government making, that it needs a loan for?
    What do you think a bond is? A bond is another name for a loan.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    dixiedean said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."

    Does this even sound right ?

    When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.

    And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.

    This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.

    I think four of them were fired - imagine they were those who did the wrongdoing.
    Some of the organisations I’ve worked for have no reference policies - but how can you stop someone privately writing a reference for someone else? They aren’t going to tell you...

    I’m not clear on why the police were not involved - either in Haiti or back here if the individuals are British.
    What crimes are alleged? Don't know about Haiti, but prostitution is not a crime here if those involved are over 18.
    It is alleged that some were under age.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    dixiedean said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."

    Does this even sound right ?

    When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.

    And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.

    This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.

    I think four of them were fired - imagine they were those who did the wrongdoing.
    Some of the organisations I’ve worked for have no reference policies - but how can you stop someone privately writing a reference for someone else? They aren’t going to tell you...

    I’m not clear on why the police were not involved - either in Haiti or back here if the individuals are British.
    What crimes are alleged? Don't know about Haiti, but prostitution is not a crime here if those involved are over 18.
    It is alleged that some were under age.
    Ah OK. It is a commonly held fallacy that prostitution is illegal here (probably from too much US TV).
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    Except why would they be income earning assets if not run as a business ... and if they are run as a business then what's the point?
    They don't pay the corporation tax they could/should, they do pay dividends to shareholders, it is more expensive for them to borrow than for govt to borrow, there are social benefits to having public infrastructure in public hands... these are some of the benefits as I see it.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,542
    This is a lengthy but rewarding article about the dynamics of the Trump presidency. Steve Bannon reckons Trump won by tapping into people's anger as an angry man himself, but Trump doesn't really understand those people's anger.

    https://www.twitter.com/BV/status/961969509572673536
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."

    Does this even sound right ?

    When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.

    And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.

    This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.

    I think four of them were fired - imagine they were those who did the wrongdoing.
    Some of the organisations I’ve worked for have no reference policies - but how can you stop someone privately writing a reference for someone else? They aren’t going to tell you...

    I’m not clear on why the police were not involved - either in Haiti or back here if the individuals are British.
    What crimes are alleged? Don't know about Haiti, but prostitution is not a crime here if those involved are over 18.
    It is alleged that some were under age.
    Ah OK. It is a commonly held fallacy that prostitution is illegal here (probably from too much US TV).
    Also, a teacher/lecturer will face disciplinary action if they have sex with a student over the age of consent.

    It is not illegal, but it is a violation of duty of care and a conflict of interest, and would normally be viewed as professional misconduct.

    I'd say the same is true of an aid worker having sex with desperate people in Haiti for money.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,728
    Barnesian said:

    The cost of nationalising the water industry by swapping loans for assets is estimated to be £90b.

    The Student Loan Debt is estimated to be over £100b.

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jun/15/uk-student-loan-debt-soars-to-more-than £100bn

    The Government has borrowed that £100b to pay Universities (via students) by issuing loans but has kept it off the deficit and debt by balancing it against the student debt asset.

    The Government should be pleased that McDonnell is following their lead. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    The Tories brought in loans in the 1990s, but when last I checked it was Labour who brought in tuition fees and top-up fees.

    So it isn't imitation, merely continuity.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Italy looking like they’re going to be on the wrong end of a cricket score in Dublin.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."

    Does this even sound right ?

    When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.

    And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.

    This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.

    I think four of them were fired - imagine they were those who did the wrongdoing.
    Some of the organisations I’ve worked for have no reference policies - but how can you stop someone privately writing a reference for someone else? They aren’t going to tell you...

    I’m not clear on why the police were not involved - either in Haiti or back here if the individuals are British.
    What crimes are alleged? Don't know about Haiti, but prostitution is not a crime here if those involved are over 18.
    It is alleged that some were under age.
    Ah OK. It is a commonly held fallacy that prostitution is illegal here (probably from too much US TV).
    Also, a teacher/lecturer will face disciplinary action if they have sex with a student over the age of consent.

    It is not illegal, but it is a violation of duty of care and a conflict of interest, and would normally be viewed as professional misconduct.

    I'd say the same is true of an aid worker having sex with desperate people in Haiti for money.
    Indeed. This is true. However, they would not involve police action, which was my difficulty. I did not know some were alleged to be under-aged.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,552
    Sandpit said:

    One side effect of McDonnell mouthing off about nationalisation, is that between now and the next election the water companies are going to spend as little as they can get away with on long term planning and infrastructure, and as much effort as possible on pumping their own share price in the short term.

    The biggest argument against nationalisation is that infrastructure spending becomes a political decision, rather than simply a company investing in their own future. That and the unions. Ask anyone who remembers the ‘70s and ‘80s.

    One of the rationales for privatisation at the time was government having difficulty coming up with the funds for essential infrastructure spending.
    There are reasonable-ish arguments on both sides; McDonnell's not being amongst them.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    A good thread.

    Despite the bluster by some on here, the economic case is unarguable. Putting up trade barriers with the EU (which is what leaving means) is going to hurt.

    There are a lot of reasons why people voted Brexit or Remain, but ultimately it comes down to this:

    Do you prefer to support the economy, or control immigration?

    And the people, many of whom (despite record employment) don’t feel they have much of a stake in the economy, preferred to do something about immigration.

    Just as Brexiters don’t have any good arguments against the economic problems of Brexit (though It doesn’t stop them trying), Remainers don’t really have an answer to the immigration question.

    You can believe, as I do, that EU immigration has massively enriched this country. That it has helped our world-beating industries - Finance, AI, Biotech, and the Creative sector - become successful in part by sucking in the best and brightest from across Europe, in part through access to a continental supply chain, and in part through access to an export market of half a billion.

    You can read the research that says that EU migrants consume less benefits, pay more tax, do better in school etc - and that they help balance a quickly ageing population and defuse a demographic timebomb.

    But such world class sectors tend to be in London. The benefits of biotech have not yet reached Blackpool. And, you don’t want to hear about the problems of an ageing population of you are 75 and living off a state pension after working every day of your life since you were 16.

    The country is now home to over 1 million Poles, and every Uber driver I have seems to be Romanian. And, to some extent, we are subsidising those immigrants (and the employers of immigrants) on lower wages though tax benefits and, even if most don’t use it, access to our universal social security system.

    The scale of immigration, and some of the tenets that enable it, seem somehow unfair - not to me, but maybe to those just getting by.

    I won’t stop arguing to Remain, or for the softest possible Brexit, because I want prosperity for the country, it’s people, and my family. And because I believe Britain is largely a force for good in the world, and I do not welcome anything that reduces its influence (as Brexit clearly does, as observed by everyone from the NY Times to the Indian Foreign Ministry).

    But I don’t have a good answer on the immigration point. And until Remain leaders do - I can’t see a way out of Brexit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    dixiedean said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."

    Does this even sound right ?

    When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.

    And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.

    This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.

    I think four of them were fired - imagine they were those who did the wrongdoing.
    Some of the organisations I’ve worked for have no reference policies - but how can you stop someone privately writing a reference for someone else? They aren’t going to tell you...

    I’m not clear on why the police were not involved - either in Haiti or back here if the individuals are British.
    What crimes are alleged? Don't know about Haiti, but prostitution is not a crime here if those involved are over 18.
    Prostitution is illegal in Haiti.

    Some of the women are alleged to be under age.

    It is alleged that the parties and the hookers were paid for with charitable donations, a clear breach of UK charity law.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited February 2018

    A good thread.

    Despite the bluster by some on here, the economic case is unarguable. Putting up trade barriers with the EU (which is what leaving means) is going to hurt.

    There are a lot of reasons why people voted Brexit or Remain, but ultimately it comes down to this:

    Do you prefer to support the economy, or control immigration?

    And the people, many of whom (despite record employment) don’t feel they have much of a stake in the economy, preferred to do something about immigration.

    Just as Brexiters don’t have any good arguments against the economic problems of Brexit (though It doesn’t stop them trying), Remainers don’t really have an answer to the immigration question.

    You can believe, as I do, that EU immigration has massively enriched this country. That it has helped our world-beating industries - Finance, AI, Biotech, and the Creative sector - become successful in part by sucking in the best and brightest from across Europe, in part through access to a continental supply chain, and in part through access to an export market of half a billion.

    You can read the research that says that EU migrants consume less benefits, pay more tax, do better in school etc - and that they help balance a quickly ageing population and defuse a demographic timebomb.

    But such world class sectors tend to be in London. The benefits of biotech have not yet reached Blackpool. And, you don’t want to hear about the problems of an ageing population of you are 75 and living off a state pension after working every day of your life since you were 16.

    The country is now home to over 1 million Poles, and every Uber driver I have seems to be Romanian. And, to some extent, we are subsidising those immigrants (and the employers of immigrants) on lower wages though tax benefits and, even if most don’t use it, access to our universal social security system.

    The scale of immigration, and some of the tenets that enable it, seem somehow unfair - not to me, but maybe to those just getting by.

    ...

    But I don’t have a good answer on the immigration point. And until Remain leaders do - I can’t see a way out of Brexit.
    Mr Walker, very good of you to recognise the immigration issue. It is a much more grown up approach than those who just call Leavers bigoted etc.

    I suspect Brexit will lead to short term turbulence for import/export businesses. My own included. With likely knock on impacts. But in the long run I suspect little noticeable impact. And yes, I think 5% lower growth over 15 years, for example, would go unnoticed.

    Economic directions of travel are impacted more by domestic policies than EU membership; but immigration from the EU cannot be changed whilst we remain members.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Barnesian said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    No it isn't. The Government borrowed real cash folding money, and lent it to the universities. McD is proposing a straight share for bond swap, with no payment of money involved. OK he has to pay the coupon on the bonds, but he's doing that out of profits. So what is he borrowing?
    Both deals involve setting loans against assets to avoid adding to the deficit and debt. There are no suitcases of folding money involved.
    No they don't. The universities got money - admittedly probably not in used notes, contrary to my frivolous suggestion, but in pounds Sterling. McD's proposal is that shares should be swapped for bonds. What cash payment is the government making, that it needs a loan for?
    The Government can issue bonds for cash and use that cash to buy an asset - the Student loan book.

    It can also issue bonds directly for assets (without using cash) by swapping the bonds for equity in water companies. The principle and the intention is the same.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,261



    There are a lot of reasons why people voted Brexit or Remain, but ultimately it comes down to this:

    Do you prefer to support the economy, or control immigration?

    And the people, many of whom (despite record employment) don’t feel they have much of a stake in the economy, preferred to do something about immigration.

    Just as Brexiters don’t have any good arguments against the economic problems of Brexit (though It doesn’t stop them trying), Remainers don’t really have an answer to the immigration question.

    You can believe, as I do, that EU immigration has massively enriched this country. That it has helped our world-beating industries - Finance, AI, Biotech, and the Creative sector - become successful in part by sucking in the best and brightest from across Europe, in part through access to a continental supply chain, and in part through access to an export market of half a billion.

    You can read the research that says that EU migrants consume less benefits, pay more tax, do better in school etc - and that they help balance a quickly ageing population and defuse a demographic timebomb.

    But such world class sectors tend to be in London. The benefits of biotech have not yet reached Blackpool. And, you don’t want to hear about the problems of an ageing population of you are 75 and living off a state pension after working every day of your life since you were 16.

    The country is now home to over 1 million Poles, and every Uber driver I have seems to be Romanian. And, to some extent, we are subsidising those immigrants (and the employers of immigrants) on lower wages though tax benefits and, even if most don’t use it, access to our universal social security system.

    The scale of immigration, and some of the tenets that enable it, seem somehow unfair - not to me, but maybe to those just getting by.

    I won’t stop arguing to Remain, or for the softest possible Brexit, because I want prosperity for the country, it’s people, and my family. And because I believe Britain is largely a force for good in the world, and I do not welcome anything that reduces its influence (as Brexit clearly does, as observed by everyone from the NY Times to the Indian Foreign Ministry).

    But I don’t have a good answer on the immigration point. And until Remain leaders do - I can’t see a way out of Brexit.
    Very good post - and one which those of us who are devout remainers should seriously reflect on.

    Fundamentally, I find it hard to understand why people get so het up about immigration, or having some laws made in Brussels rather than London... but clearly 52% of voters did feel strongly enough about it. The economic arguments didn't make much of an impression pre-referendum and probably won't now.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Mortimer said:

    I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
    Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.

    This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
    I export all around the world, as do many others on this site.

    And actually opinion, or rather, the honouring the way people voted, is more important than the effects on an export business. Otherwise democracy has failed.
    Democracy is important, but business and the taxes it generates are what keep people warm, fed, healthy and prosperous. Democracy provides a framework in which people and business can flourish, but it is not a necessary requirement - for example, China is not a democracy.

    Besides, given the woeful choice between the abysmal parties and politicians that are on offer, it could be argued that democracy is getting rather pointless around here. Being offered a choice of parties whose rationale appears to be economic destruction is not really a choice.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Barnesian said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    No it isn't. The Government borrowed real cash folding money, and lent it to the universities. McD is proposing a straight share for bond swap, with no payment of money involved. OK he has to pay the coupon on the bonds, but he's doing that out of profits. So what is he borrowing?
    Both deals involve setting loans against assets to avoid adding to the deficit and debt. There are no suitcases of folding money involved.
    No they don't. The universities got money - admittedly probably not in used notes, contrary to my frivolous suggestion, but in pounds Sterling. McD's proposal is that shares should be swapped for bonds. What cash payment is the government making, that it needs a loan for?
    What do you think a bond is? A bond is another name for a loan.
    Patronising and wrong is never a good look. A bond is not a loan, it is the counterpart to or acknowledgment of a loan. McD bonds, as I understand it, are not going to say "I have had some money off you", they are going to say "I have had your equity in a Waterco off you".See the difference?
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Ishmael_Z said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    I am not sure what he means.

    "Speaking before the speech on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr McDonnell said taking services into public ownership could be achieved at no cost to the taxpayer by swapping government bonds for company shares.

    "It would be cost free. You borrow to buy an asset and when that asset is producing profits like the water industry does, that will cover your borrowing cost," he said."

    Why does he need to borrow if he is printing warrants, rather than handing out money, to get his hands on the shares?
    Ah an entirely new meaning of the words "cost free" of which I was previously unaware. Even Gordon "triple counting" Brown would have been too ashamed to try that one on us.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    A good thread.

    Despite the bluster by some on here, the economic case is unarguable. Putting up trade barriers with the EU (which is what leaving means) is going to hurt.

    There are a lot of reasons why people voted Brexit or Remain, but ultimately it comes down to this:

    Do you prefer to support the economy, or control immigration?

    And the people, many of whom (despite record employment) don’t feel they have much of a stake in the economy, preferred to do something about immigration.

    Just as Brexiters don’t have any good arguments against the economic problems of Brexit (though It doesn’t stop them trying), Remainers don’t really have an answer to the immigration question.

    You can believe, as I do, that EU immigration has massively enriched this country. That it has helped our world-beating industries - Finance, AI, Biotech, and the Creative sector - become successful in part by sucking in the best and brightest from across Europe, in part through access to a continental supply chain, and in part through access to an export market of half a billion.

    You can read the research that says that EU migrants consume less benefits, pay more tax, do better in school etc - and that they help balance a quickly ageing population and defuse a demographic timebomb.

    But such world class sectors tend to be in London. The benefits of biotech have not yet reached Blackpool. And, you don’t want to hear about the problems of an ageing population of you are 75 and living off a state pension after working every day of your life since you were 16.

    The country is now home to over 1 million Poles, and every Uber driver I have seems to be Romanian. And, to some extent, we are subsidising those immigrants (and the employers of immigrants) on lower wages though tax benefits and, even if most don’t use it, access to our universal social security system.

    The scale of immigration, and some of the tenets that enable it, seem somehow unfair - not to me, but maybe to those just getting by.

    I won’t stop arguing to Remain, or for the softest possible Brexit, because I want prosperity for the country, it’s people, and my family. And because I believe Britain is largely a force for good in the world, and I do not welcome anything that reduces its influence (as Brexit clearly does, as observed by everyone from the NY Times to the Indian Foreign Ministry).

    But I don’t have a good answer on the immigration point. And until Remain leaders do - I can’t see a way out of Brexit.
    :+1:
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Sandpit said:

    The biggest argument against nationalisation is that infrastructure spending becomes a political decision, rather than simply a company investing in their own future. That and the unions. Ask anyone who remembers the ‘70s and ‘80s.

    This is bleeding obivous, when push comes to shove are the govnerment going to build a road or fund the "envy of the world" NHS? Politics screws things up.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122



    There are a lot of reasons why people voted Brexit or Remain, but ultimately it comes down to this:

    Do you prefer to support the economy, or control immigration?

    And the people, many of whom (despite record employment) don’t feel they have much of a stake in the economy, preferred to do something about immigration.

    Just as Brexiters don’t have any good arguments against the economic problems of Brexit (though It doesn’t stop them trying), Remainers don’t really have an answer to the immigration question.

    You can believe, as I do, that EU immigration has massively enriched this country. That it has helped our world-beating industries - Finance, AI, Biotech, and the Creative sector - become successful in part by sucking in the best and brightest from across Europe, in part through access to a continental supply chain, and in part through access to an export market of half a billion.

    You can read the research that says that EU migrants consume less benefits, pay more tax, do better in school etc - and that they help balance a quickly ageing population and defuse a demographic timebomb.

    But such world class sectors tend to be in London. The benefits of biotech have not yet reached Blackpool. And, you don’t want to hear about the problems of an ageing population of you are 75 and living off a state pension after working every day of your life since you were 16.

    The country is now home to over 1 million Poles, and every Uber driver I have seems to be Romanian. And, to some extent, we are subsidising those immigrants (and the employers of immigrants) on lower wages though tax benefits and, even if most don’t use it, access to our universal social security system.

    The scale of immigration, and some of the tenets that enable it, seem somehow unfair - not to me, but maybe to those just getting by.

    I won’t stop arguing to Remain, or for the softest possible Brexit, because I want prosperity for the country, it’s people, and my family. And because I believe Britain is largely a force for good in the world, and I do not welcome anything that reduces its influence (as Brexit clearly does, as observed by everyone from the NY Times to the Indian Foreign Ministry).

    But I don’t have a good answer on the immigration point. And until Remain leaders do - I can’t see a way out of Brexit.
    Very good post - and one which those of us who are devout remainers should seriously reflect on.

    Fundamentally, I find it hard to understand why people get so het up about immigration, or having some laws made in Brussels rather than London... but clearly 52% of voters did feel strongly enough about it. The economic arguments didn't make much of an impression pre-referendum and probably won't now.
    +1
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Barnesian said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    No it isn't. The Government borrowed real cash folding money, and lent it to the universities. McD is proposing a straight share for bond swap, with no payment of money involved. OK he has to pay the coupon on the bonds, but he's doing that out of profits. So what is he borrowing?
    Both deals involve setting loans against assets to avoid adding to the deficit and debt. There are no suitcases of folding money involved.
    No they don't. The universities got money - admittedly probably not in used notes, contrary to my frivolous suggestion, but in pounds Sterling. McD's proposal is that shares should be swapped for bonds. What cash payment is the government making, that it needs a loan for?
    What do you think a bond is? A bond is another name for a loan.
    Patronising and wrong is never a good look. A bond is not a loan, it is the counterpart to or acknowledgment of a loan. McD bonds, as I understand it, are not going to say "I have had some money off you", they are going to say "I have had your equity in a Waterco off you".See the difference?
    A forced bond swap would be illegal, wouldn't it? Can primary legislation in a specific case override that?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122

    Mortimer said:

    I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
    Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.

    This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
    I export all around the world, as do many others on this site.

    And actually opinion, or rather, the honouring the way people voted, is more important than the effects on an export business. Otherwise democracy has failed.
    Democracy is important, but business and the taxes it generates are what keep people warm, fed, healthy and prosperous. Democracy provides a framework in which people and business can flourish, but it is not a necessary requirement - for example, China is not a democracy.

    Besides, given the woeful choice between the abysmal parties and politicians that are on offer, it could be argued that democracy is getting rather pointless around here. Being offered a choice of parties whose rationale appears to be economic destruction is not really a choice.
    I guess you need to move to China.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,261
    Mortimer said:

    Mr Walker, very good of you to recognise the immigration issue. It is a much more grown up approach than those who just call Leavers bigoted etc.

    I suspect Brexit will lead to short term turbulence for import/export businesses. My own included. With likely knock on impacts. But in the long run I suspect little noticeable impact. And yes, I think 5% lower growth over 15 years, for example, would go unnoticed.

    Economic directions of travel are impacted more by domestic policies than EU membership; but immigration from the EU cannot be changed whilst we remain members.
    Mortimer, I accept that immigration is a major issue for many people (and that I am in a minority as seeing immigration as a generally good thing).

    Can I ask you though, do you seriously think it will be curtailed after Brexit? After all, IIRC c.50% of immigration is from outside the EU and despite numerous government pledges to reduce it, non-EU immigration has not noticeably fallen has it?
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900

    Betting without considering the price is the very definition of mug betting.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,952
    Ireland get the bonus point after 35 minutes.....
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Also, on MaccyD's hilarious nationalisation plan, how does he plan to make this 'irreversible', as trailed?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,728
    felix said:

    Being offered a choice of parties whose rationale appears to be economic destruction is not really a choice.

    I guess you need to move to China.
    China's government hasn't really been big on economic destruction since the disaster of the Cultural Revolution.

    If you want to see economic destruction try Venezuela where a drunken despot robbed the country blind Socialism was tried to great acclaim from certain less able politicians with decidedly unfortunate results.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    A good thread.

    Despite the bluster by some on here, the economic case is unarguable. Putting up trade barriers with the EU (which is what leaving means) is going to hurt.

    There are a lot of reasons why people voted Brexit or Remain, but ultimately it comes down to this:

    Do you prefer to support the economy, or control immigration?

    And the people, many of whom (despite record employment) don’t feel they have much of a stake in the economy, preferred to do something about immigration.

    Just as Brexiters don’t have any good arguments against the economic problems of Brexit (though It doesn’t stop them trying), Remainers don’t really have an answer to the immigration question.

    You can believe, as I do, that EU immigration has massively enriched this country. That it has helped our world-beating industries - Finance, AI, Biotech, and the Creative sector - become successful in part by sucking in the best and brightest from across Europe, in part through access to a continental supply chain, and in part through access to an export market of half a billion.

    You can read the research that says that EU migrants consume less benefits, pay more tax, do better in school etc - and that they help balance a quickly ageing population and defuse a demographic timebomb.

    But such world class sectors tend to be in London. The benefits of biotech have not yet reached Blackpool. And, you don’t want to hear about the problems of an ageing population of you are 75 and living off a state pension after working every day of your life since you were 16.

    The country is now home to over 1 million Poles, and every Uber driver I have seems to be Romanian. And, to some extent, we are subsidising those immigrants (and the employers of immigrants) on lower wages though tax benefits and, even if most don’t use it, access to our universal social security system.

    The scale of immigration, and some of the tenets that enable it, seem somehow unfair - not to me, but maybe to those just getting by.

    I won’t stop arguing to Remain, or for the softest possible Brexit, because I want prosperity for the country, it’s people, and my family. And because I believe Britain is largely a force for good in the world, and I do not welcome anything that reduces its influence (as Brexit clearly does, as observed by everyone from the NY Times to the Indian Foreign Ministry).

    But I don’t have a good answer on the immigration point. And until Remain leaders do - I can’t see a way out of Brexit.
    Well said. Someone on the Remain side who at least seeks to understand the reasons behind the vote to Leave - as opposed to calling Leave voters names.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Mortimer said:

    Also, on MaccyD's hilarious nationalisation plan, how does he plan to make this 'irreversible', as trailed?

    Yes that made me wonder too, as surely any future government can undo such actions.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    Except why would they be income earning assets if not run as a business ... and if they are run as a business then what's the point?
    It would be run as a business in the interests of customers, employees and shareholder (the Government). Its financing costs would be lower (Government debt costs less than commercial debt), top management pay, bonuses and share options would be less, dividends would more than cover interest payments and it would be run in the interests of all of us rather than just shareholders and top management. That's the point.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    felix said:

    Mortimer said:

    I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
    Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.

    This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
    I export all around the world, as do many others on this site.

    And actually opinion, or rather, the honouring the way people voted, is more important than the effects on an export business. Otherwise democracy has failed.
    Democracy is important, but business and the taxes it generates are what keep people warm, fed, healthy and prosperous. Democracy provides a framework in which people and business can flourish, but it is not a necessary requirement - for example, China is not a democracy.

    Besides, given the woeful choice between the abysmal parties and politicians that are on offer, it could be argued that democracy is getting rather pointless around here. Being offered a choice of parties whose rationale appears to be economic destruction is not really a choice.
    I guess you need to move to China.
    IIRC correctly, you are already abroad so I guess your advice on this topic is good ;)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,728
    edited February 2018
    Mortimer said:

    A forced bond swap would be illegal, wouldn't it? Can primary legislation in a specific case override that?

    At the moment, no.

    Once we are outside the EU yes, as Parliament can do anything it likes again. It would have to withdraw from the ECHR but there would be no reason why it could not.
    Mortimer said:

    Also, on MaccyD's hilarious nationalisation plan, how does he plan to make this 'irreversible', as trailed?

    His idea is it will be so popular and so successful nobody will be able to undo it, a latter day NHS.

    The frightening thing is not the stupidity, it's the hubris.
  • Rebourne_FluffyRebourne_Fluffy Posts: 225
    edited February 2018
    Off-topic:

    Unckie-Clown's new emoticon suggests that Scotland has given-up it's claim on Rockall (unless they are the evil colonials they have been spewing for the past five years). A chance for the Ulster-Jockanese - waves at Alanbrooke - to reclaim &c.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,952
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    Except why would they be income earning assets if not run as a business ... and if they are run as a business then what's the point?
    It would be run as a business in the interests of customers, employees and shareholder (the Government). Its financing costs would be lower (Government debt costs less than commercial debt), top management pay, bonuses and share options would be less, dividends would more than cover interest payments and it would be run in the interests of all of us rather than just shareholders and top management. That's the point.
    Anyone with a pension is already "us". "Just shareholders" - you make them sound like memebers of some eighteenth century gentlemens club.

    "McDonnell is going to rob your pension fund" is going to be a bugger of a charge to fight off.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited February 2018

    Mortimer said:

    Mr Walker, very good of you to recognise the immigration issue. It is a much more grown up approach than those who just call Leavers bigoted etc.

    I suspect Brexit will lead to short term turbulence for import/export businesses. My own included. With likely knock on impacts. But in the long run I suspect little noticeable impact. And yes, I think 5% lower growth over 15 years, for example, would go unnoticed.

    Economic directions of travel are impacted more by domestic policies than EU membership; but immigration from the EU cannot be changed whilst we remain members.
    Mortimer, I accept that immigration is a major issue for many people (and that I am in a minority as seeing immigration as a generally good thing).

    Can I ask you though, do you seriously think it will be curtailed after Brexit? After all, IIRC c.50% of immigration is from outside the EU and despite numerous government pledges to reduce it, non-EU immigration has not noticeably fallen has it?
    I suspect the raw numbers will go down, definitely, largely because of the unnatural draw that our (in my mind morally justifiable - we have a duty to care for our own) welfare state provides.

    I also suspect that the headroom (both numerical and policital) that this will provide more capacity for more higher paid immigration from outside of the U.K., and more temporary work visas.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,728

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    Except why would they be income earning assets if not run as a business ... and if they are run as a business then what's the point?
    It would be run as a business in the interests of customers, employees and shareholder (the Government). Its financing costs would be lower (Government debt costs less than commercial debt), top management pay, bonuses and share options would be less, dividends would more than cover interest payments and it would be run in the interests of all of us rather than just shareholders and top management. That's the point.
    Anyone with a pension is already "us". "Just shareholders" - you make them sound like memebers of some eighteenth century gentlemens club.

    "McDonnell is going to rob your pension fund" is going to be a bugger of a charge to fight off.
    One thing he has also forgotten is that many employees of these companies own shares in them as well.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    Except why would they be income earning assets if not run as a business ... and if they are run as a business then what's the point?
    It would be run as a business in the interests of customers, employees and shareholder (the Government). Its financing costs would be lower (Government debt costs less than commercial debt), top management pay, bonuses and share options would be less, dividends would more than cover interest payments and it would be run in the interests of all of us rather than just shareholders and top management. That's the point.
    Anyone with a pension is already "us". "Just shareholders" - you make them sound like memebers of some eighteenth century gentlemens club.

    "McDonnell is going to rob your pension fund" is going to be a bugger of a charge to fight off.
    'LABOUR WANT YOUR SAVINGS'

    I hope the LDs nationally embrace MaccyD's barmy plans - will make those LD/Tory marginals as safe as houses.
  • I have posted before about the challenge facing the Democrats in taking the Senate on "Betfair terms" - that is, treating the independents, Sanders and King, as if they were true Independents, not Democrats.

    We have now had a set of February predictions, so for the purpose of comparing them to January predictions, I have invented a numerical scale whereby a positive score would broadly correlate to a decent chance of winning control whereas a negative score is at best an outside chance.

    Cook Political Report moves from -20 to -19
    Sabato's Crystal Ball moves from -20 to -19
    New York Times moves -20 to -19 (last fortnight only)
    Inside Elections holds at -23.

    A small improvement for the Dems, but not enough.

    Remember they have to unseat Ted Cruz (or an even less likely candidate) to win control on Betfair terms.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    Anyone with a pension is already "us". "Just shareholders" - you make them sound like memebers of some eighteenth century gentlemens club.

    "McDonnell is going to rob your pension fund" is going to be a bugger of a charge to fight off.

    There was a good comment on the radio early in the week, when a host asked "why should we care about the US market falling?" The answer being that it is our pensions invested in those stocks too.

    I think one of my own pensions is about 50% US stocks.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,261
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mr Walker, very good of you to recognise the immigration issue. It is a much more grown up approach than those who just call Leavers bigoted etc.

    I suspect Brexit will lead to short term turbulence for import/export businesses. My own included. With likely knock on impacts. But in the long run I suspect little noticeable impact. And yes, I think 5% lower growth over 15 years, for example, would go unnoticed.

    Economic directions of travel are impacted more by domestic policies than EU membership; but immigration from the EU cannot be changed whilst we remain members.
    Mortimer, I accept that immigration is a major issue for many people (and that I am in a minority as seeing immigration as a generally good thing).

    Can I ask you though, do you seriously think it will be curtailed after Brexit? After all, IIRC c.50% of immigration is from outside the EU and despite numerous government pledges to reduce it, non-EU immigration has not noticeably fallen has it?
    I suspect the raw numbers will go down, definitely, largely because of the unnatural draw that our (in my mind morally justifiable - we have a duty to care for our own) welfare state provides.

    I also suspect that the headroom (both numerical and policital) that this will provide more capacity for more higher paid immigration from outside of the U.K., and more temporary work visas.
    Well, we'll see - I suspect in 5-10 years time immigration will still be a big issue for some.

    The irony is of course that we could have made the access to welfare benfits much tighter for EU migrants whilst sticking to EU rules, but chose not to. (Though it probably wouldn't have reduced immigration numbers because the myth of EU immigrants coming here for our benefits is largely exactly that, a myth.)
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Mortimer said:

    I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
    Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.

    This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
    I export all around the world, as do many others on this site.

    And actually opinion, or rather, the honouring the way people voted, is more important than the effects on an export business. Otherwise democracy has failed.
    Good point. Democracy is more important than economics. We argue all day about economics because nobody really knows the answer. But you can't argue with the result of the vote.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Mortimer said:



    A forced bond swap would be illegal, wouldn't it? Can primary legislation in a specific case override that?

    It's how we used to do it:

    "After the Second World War, the Big Four railway companies of the grouping era were effectively bankrupt, and the Act was intended to bring about some stability in transport policy. As part of that policy, British Railways was established to run the railways. (The Transport Act 1948 later transferred the lines in Northern Ireland formerly of the LMS, the Northern Counties Committee, to the Ulster Transport Authority.)

    Shares in the railway companies were exchanged for British Transport Stock, with a guaranteed 3% return chargeable to the BTC,[1] and were repayable after forty years."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Act_1947

    There may be relevant rules against expropriation in EU/ECHR law, but they usually turn out pretty toothless and anyway yebbutbrexit.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Sandpit said:


    Well said. Someone on the Remain side who at least seeks to understand the reasons behind the vote to Leave - as opposed to calling Leave voters names.

    Thankyou and others for the compliments.
    However I’m sure I will disappoint you. Brexit still absolutely infuriates me, and the antics of Brexit politicians from Rees-Mogg through Corbyn alternately terrify and disgust me.

    To compensate, I take some small delight in bandying about Brexit insults.

    But perhaps I will try to be better behaved after the generous response to my post.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755

    Mortimer said:

    I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
    Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.

    This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
    I export all around the world, as do many others on this site.

    And actually opinion, or rather, the honouring the way people voted, is more important than the effects on an export business. Otherwise democracy has failed.
    Democracy is important, but business and the taxes it generates are what keep people warm, fed, healthy and prosperous. Democracy provides a framework in which people and business can flourish, but it is not a necessary requirement - for example, China is not a democracy.

    Besides, given the woeful choice between the abysmal parties and politicians that are on offer, it could be argued that democracy is getting rather pointless around here. Being offered a choice of parties whose rationale appears to be economic destruction is not really a choice.
    You should try living under an undemocratic regime. You might appreciate more what you have.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,542

    Mortimer said:

    I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
    Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.

    This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
    I export all around the world, as do many others on this site.

    And actually opinion, or rather, the honouring the way people voted, is more important than the effects on an export business. Otherwise democracy has failed.
    Good point. Democracy is more important than economics. We argue all day about economics because nobody really knows the answer. But you can't argue with the result of the vote.
    Actually you can argue with the result of the vote, as long as you argue with it and don't ignore it. I'm not particularly minded to do so myself. What this government can't do is deliver the outcome those people voting for the motion presumably intended. The contradictions of that position are unresolvable. Hence the stalemate.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,261

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry.
    Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
    It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.

    The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
    Except why would they be income earning assets if not run as a business ... and if they are run as a business then what's the point?
    It would be run as a business in the interests of customers, employees and shareholder (the Government). Its financing costs would be lower (Government debt costs less than commercial debt), top management pay, bonuses and share options would be less, dividends would more than cover interest payments and it would be run in the interests of all of us rather than just shareholders and top management. That's the point.
    Anyone with a pension is already "us". "Just shareholders" - you make them sound like memebers of some eighteenth century gentlemens club.

    "McDonnell is going to rob your pension fund" is going to be a bugger of a charge to fight off.
    Plenty across the country (though not so many on here, and not me thank God) with no pension fund to speak of. I don't know what the proportion is, but if you take away all those still on defined benefits arrangements as well I suspect only a minority of the country have a pension fund of more than, say, £50k to worry about.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    edited February 2018
    glw said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    John McDonnell has a wizard wheeze:

    "Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free," John McDonnell has said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861

    I am not sure what he means.

    "Speaking before the speech on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr McDonnell said taking services into public ownership could be achieved at no cost to the taxpayer by swapping government bonds for company shares.

    "It would be cost free. You borrow to buy an asset and when that asset is producing profits like the water industry does, that will cover your borrowing cost," he said."

    Why does he need to borrow if he is printing warrants, rather than handing out money, to get his hands on the shares?
    Ah an entirely new meaning of the words "cost free" of which I was previously unaware. Even Gordon "triple counting" Brown would have been too ashamed to try that one on us.
    This paper on water companies is a few years old, but maybe the numbers aren't that much different today.

    "Total investment, including renewal of existing assets, has averaged £3.6bn pa, or 83% of operating cash flow; the minimum proportion in a year was 70%."

    "Dividends have exceeded free cash flow net of interest in all years except 1995."

    https://www.cass.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/86449/6-Water-paper-Apr-11.pdf

    If a water company is using 80% of cash flow for investment, and is effectively borrowing to invest and pay a good dividend already, then how will the cash stream be available to pay down government bonds?
This discussion has been closed.