ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who gambles is a lifetime winner? Thats not true. No one has a 100% success rate, but I cant believe anyone would be stupid enough to attempt a profound riposte on that basis, so what do you mean?
This is, after all, a betting site. Are you saying everyone will, eventually, be out of pocket?
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who gambles is a lifetime winner? Thats not true. No one has a 100% success rate, but I cant believe anyone would be stupid enough to attempt a profound riposte on that basis, so what do you mean?
This is, after all, a betting site. Are you saying everyone will, eventually, be out of pocket?
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who gambles is a lifetime winner? Thats not true. No one has a 100% success rate, but I cant believe anyone would be stupid enough to attempt a profound riposte on that basis, so what do you mean?
This is, after all, a betting site. Are you saying everyone will, eventually, be out of pocket?
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
HYUFD is in one of his periodic tankie moods. The reality, as Big G and David L have patiently explained, is that if the SNP (plus Greens) make a second referendum front and centre of their 2021 campaign and are returned with a majority at Holyrood, it will be granted by the UK government. Timing would be negotiated but probably sometime in 2022 would be my guess.
Naturally, I'd prefer the SNP to lose in which case problem solved.
Anyway, as this is political betting, how about £100 with HYUFD that he is wrong on this one?
No it would not.
The Tory manifesto was quite clear a Tory government would not grant indyref2 as the first one was 'once in a generation' and both Alister Jack and Therese Coffey have confirmed the PM and Cabinet have agreed that applies even with another nationalist majority at Holyrood.
There is nothing to bet about, that is the policy of the Tory government as set out in its 2019 manifesto
It being a settled constitutional principle that governments never depart from their manifesto pronouncements.... and Boris a stickler for not changing his mind.
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who gambles is a lifetime winner? Thats not true. No one has a 100% success rate, but I cant believe anyone would be stupid enough to attempt a profound riposte on that basis, so what do you mean?
This is, after all, a betting site. Are you saying everyone will, eventually, be out of pocket?
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
I’m agreeing with you.
@Byronic asserted that Boris and Super Dom are so successful because they gamble against the odds. I merely mused that nobody gambles and wins every time.
Why the north of England? Why not Scotland or Wales?
Why is Shelter England HQ-ed in London
And if it has to be in London why is it in EC1?
One of the reasons Northern Rock failed was the lazy feckers supervising it couldn't be arsed to spend 3 hours on the train to Newcastle....
Northern Rock has two major flaws, neither of which required a trip up North to notice:
1. It was issuing mortgages at well over 100% LTV 2a. Its business model required it to rapidly sell on the debt it had issued as bonds. If it could not then the debt it still had on its books was the riskiest (most recently issued) debt 2b. Northern Rock dominated market making in the bonds it had issued. This meant that as things went bad, it was supposed to step up and buy them from its customers.
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who gambles is a lifetime winner? Thats not true. No one has a 100% success rate, but I cant believe anyone would be stupid enough to attempt a profound riposte on that basis, so what do you mean?
This is, after all, a betting site. Are you saying everyone will, eventually, be out of pocket?
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
I’m agreeing with you.
@Byronic asserted that Boris and Super Dom are so successful because they gamble against the odds. I merely mused that nobody gambles and wins every time.
Lifetime loss or gain is irrelevant.
What if someone gambles twice, wins both times, and never gambles again?
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who gambles is a lifetime winner? Thats not true. No one has a 100% success rate, but I cant believe anyone would be stupid enough to attempt a profound riposte on that basis, so what do you mean?
This is, after all, a betting site. Are you saying everyone will, eventually, be out of pocket?
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
I’m agreeing with you.
@Byronic asserted that Boris and Super Dom are so successful because they gamble against the odds. I merely mused that nobody gambles and wins every time.
Lifetime loss or gain is irrelevant.
What if someone gambles twice, wins both times, and never gambles again?
What about it? That has nothing to do with the situation we’re talking about.
Nice idea. Don't fully see the point/benefit. You're gifting the recipient town a few jobs, some building work, restaurant business. All good but does York need that? Also seems like you're increasing costs more then just moving them - their Lordships already have offices and a chamber in the Palace of Westminster.
It only makes sense to me if they have plans for the second chamber. For example, making the Commons into an English Parli and the Lords into the UK Parli. Which if that is planned, seems like that should be the thing that goes elsewhere. Perhaps that's it. Build it for the Lords, then use it for something else longer term.
York does not need these benefits. But there are places that do - Barrow, for instance, or Carlisle. Moving a major institution to places like these would really help them and it might teach some of our legislators a thing or two about the country they want to govern.
Moving from one metropolis to another is a PR gimmick. Moving to a place that the likes of Lady Morgan and Zac Goldsmith would not normally be seen dead in would really shake things up.
But in any case I think this is more about limiting the powers of the Lords and a distraction technique rather than a serious attempt to transfer centres of power away from London. The Tories have already rowed back from their recent suggestion to move CCHQ out of London.
If it's being proposed seriously, the choice is one that needs careful thought. If we love and care about ancient our institutions, they should be placed somewhere befitting that institution - in the sense of history, significance and beauty - or at least the potential of those things. I wouldn't be in favour of sticking the HOL in Slough, Gateshead, Cumbernauld, Milton Keynes etc. No offence to those places. But equally it shouldn't be wasted on an already expensive, glossy, and wealthy city like Bath, Edinburgh, York, Oxford, Bristol, etc.
In Italy, the steady decline of Lega continues as they reach 30% in the latest Bidi Poll. The rise of Giorgia Meloni's FdL continues as they reach 10% (11% in other polls) with the Social Democrats on 19% and M5 on 16%.
A fascinating poll from Ireland showing Fianna Fail opening a 12-point lead over Fine Gael (32-20). SF a close third on 19% and the Greens on 7%. If this turns out to be accurate, it would be a disastrous error by Varadkar and he would be gone with Michael Martin taking over as Taoiseach.
The latest Kantar poll in Germany has the CDU/CSU on 26%, the Greens on 21%, the SPD on 15%, AfD on 14% and both the FDP and Linke on 9%. I suppose the question is whether, as in Austria, a coalition between the centre-right and the Greens will be the outcome of the next federal election.
The Union is down 7%, the SPD down 6% and the Greens up 12% from the last Bundestag election.
As FdL are coalition partners for Lega no real change in that Salvini would still become PM
This is a smokescreen. Nero fiddling while Rome burns or just Cummings fiddling about?
Apart from anything else, imagine the cost. HS2 will be a cut priced bargain compared to moving HoL out of London. It's like we haven't got anything else to spend the money on.
I bet one could buy countless water-cannon and a hatful of garden bridges.
Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc
The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?
Both HS2 and moving the HoL could be moneyspinners for the government in the medium term.
In the former case, it's worth remembering that Intercity services are profitable for the government, and UK PLC can borrow money for as little as 0.7% (10 years). So, if HS2 increases revenues by a billion or so a year on the lines, without increasing operating costs, then there will be a positive spread between operating income and interest expense.
In the latter, the HoL takes up extremely valuable real estate that could be renovated and leased out. Add in the appropriate civil service, and you could be looking at tens - possibly hundreds - of millions in the spread between costs in York and London per year.
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who gambles is a lifetime winner? Thats not true. No one has a 100% success rate, but I cant believe anyone would be stupid enough to attempt a profound riposte on that basis, so what do you mean?
This is, after all, a betting site. Are you saying everyone will, eventually, be out of pocket?
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
I’m agreeing with you.
@Byronic asserted that Boris and Super Dom are so successful because they gamble against the odds. I merely mused that nobody gambles and wins every time.
Lifetime loss or gain is irrelevant.
What if someone gambles twice, wins both times, and never gambles again?
What about it? That has nothing to do with the situation we’re talking about.
Well they'd be gambling and winning every time, which is what you say is not possible.
Don't take this the wrong way, but as you said you were ill, are you on some kind of medication that makes you behave strangely as a side effect?
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
In that light, I wonder if they might actually surprise us and follow through on this idea. Everyone is loftily chortling and saying No, of course it won’t happen - what better way to confound critics and please northerners than by actually doing it?
They also need some big news to put out there, if they cancel HS2
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who gambles is a lifetime winner? Thats not true. No one has a 100% success rate, but I cant believe anyone would be stupid enough to attempt a profound riposte on that basis, so what do you mean?
This is, after all, a betting site. Are you saying everyone will, eventually, be out of pocket?
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
I’m agreeing with you.
@Byronic asserted that Boris and Super Dom are so successful because they gamble against the odds. I merely mused that nobody gambles and wins every time.
Lifetime loss or gain is irrelevant.
What if someone gambles twice, wins both times, and never gambles again?
What about it? That has nothing to do with the situation we’re talking about.
Well they'd be gambling and winning every time, which is what you say is not possible.
Don't take this the wrong way, but as you said you were ill, are you on some kind of medication that makes you behave strangely as a side effect?
No...
We’re discussing the future actions of the Government. It was asserted that Boris gambles and that’s been one of the reasons for his success.
If he continues to gamble, then eventually he will lose. It won’t always pay off.
This is a smokescreen. Nero fiddling while Rome burns or just Cummings fiddling about?
Apart from anything else, imagine the cost. HS2 will be a cut priced bargain compared to moving HoL out of London. It's like we haven't got anything else to spend the money on.
I bet one could buy countless water-cannon and a hatful of garden bridges.
Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc
The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?
Both HS2 and moving the HoL could be moneyspinners for the government in the medium term.
In the former case, it's worth remembering that Intercity services are profitable for the government, and UK PLC can borrow money for as little as 0.7% (10 years). So, if HS2 increases revenues by a billion or so a year on the lines, without increasing operating costs, then there will be a positive spread between operating income and interest expense.
In the latter, the HoL takes up extremely valuable real estate that could be renovated and leased out. Add in the appropriate civil service, and you could be looking at tens - possibly hundreds - of millions in the spread between costs in York and London per year.
I don’t think HS2 will ever make vast profits. However, by reducing delays elsewhere, moving traffic off the roads and by opening up new economic opportunities outside London, what it will do is both cut costs and increase economic activity. That would therefore be beneficial and is one reason why despite the extra expense it makes sense for the new line to be high speed.
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who
This is, after all, a betting site. Are you saying everyone will, eventually, be out of pocket?
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
I’m agreeing with you.
@Byronic asserted that Boris and Super Dom are so successful because they gamble against the odds. I merely mused that nobody gambles and wins every time.
Lifetime loss or gain is irrelevant.
What if someone gambles twice, wins both times, and never gambles again?
What about it? That has nothing to do with the situation we’re talking about.
Well they'd be gambling and winning every time, which is what you say is not possible.
Don't take this the wrong way, but as you said you were ill, are you on some kind of medication that makes you behave strangely as a side effect?
No...
We’re discussing the future actions of the Government. It was asserted that Boris gambles and that’s been one of the reasons for his success.
If he continues to gamble, then eventually he will lose. It won’t always pay off.
South Africa are officially buggered. The only thing that can save them now is heavy rain for the next 26 hours. This is an area currently in drought....
South Africa are officially buggered. The only thing that can save them now is heavy rain for the next 26 hours. This is an area currently in drought....
I recently had a green position on two sides in the Big Bash Cricket being played in Sydney, an area ravaged by bush fires, and the game was abandoned, No Result, because of rain.
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Boris’ whole career has been notable for its audacity, and his ability to win elections/votes deemed unwinnable
We forget that everyone laughed when he first went for the London mayoralty. Likewise we forget how many experts said there was no route to a Tory majority in 2019.
He’s got where he is by gambling, and low cunning. Expect the pattern to repeat
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who
This is, after all, a betting site. Are you saying everyone will, eventually, be out of pocket?
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
I’m agreeing with you.
@Byronic asserted that Boris and Super Dom are so successful because they gamble against the odds. I merely mused that nobody gambles and wins every time.
Lifetime loss or gain is irrelevant.
What if someone gambles twice, wins both times, and never gambles again?
What about it? That has nothing to do with the situation we’re talking about.
Well they'd be gambling and winning every time, which is what you say is not possible.
Don't take this the wrong way, but as you said you were ill, are you on some kind of medication that makes you behave strangely as a side effect?
No...
We’re discussing the future actions of the Government. It was asserted that Boris gambles and that’s been one of the reasons for his success.
If he continues to gamble, then eventually he will lose. It won’t always pay off.
What on earth is controversial here?
The statement "Those who gamble eventually lose".
Which in the context of what was being discussed is accurate, unless you think the Government is now going to stop gambling. Why are you deliberately being argumentative?
ON topic, this is a government - and a prime minister - which has achieved power by doing the unexpected, and taking risks. It wants to be seen as a disruptor. That’s what Boris and Cummings DO. They challenge norms.
I don’t remember all these risks. Bozo achieved the leadership and then the election win by avoiding every risk that came his way.
Those who gamble eventually lose.
So no one who
This is, after all, a betting site. Are you saying everyone will, eventually, be out of pocket?
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
I’m agreeing with you.
@Byronic asserted that Boris and Super Dom are so successful because they gamble against the odds. I merely mused that nobody gambles and wins every time.
Lifetime loss or gain is irrelevant.
What if someone gambles twice, wins both times, and never gambles again?
What about it? That has nothing to do with the situation we’re talking about.
Well they'd be gambling and winning every time, which is what you say is not possible.
Don't take this the wrong way, but as you said you were ill, are you on some kind of medication that makes you behave strangely as a side effect?
No...
We’re discussing the future actions of the Government. It was asserted that Boris gambles and that’s been one of the reasons for his success.
If he continues to gamble, then eventually he will lose. It won’t always pay off.
What on earth is controversial here?
The statement "Those who gamble eventually lose".
Which in the context of what was being discussed is accurate, unless you think the Government is now going to stop gambling. Why are you deliberately being argumentative?
I am deliberately arguing, you are right about that. But the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose" is just nonsense, so I felt compelled to pull you up. I'll leave it now.
When you are batting to save a Test, it is a bit disappointing if only two of your top 6 batsmen face more than 40 balls, and only one of them gets past 15 runs.
I know this because of the number of times it has happened to England recently.
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
They will eventually lose if they keep on gambling. The only way to prevent this is if they cease to gamble before they have lost and do not resume. However, it is possible that when they do lose the loss is smaller than the sum of their wins up to that point. Think that's a fair and accurate summary.
This is a smokescreen. Nero fiddling while Rome burns or just Cummings fiddling about?
Apart from anything else, imagine the cost. HS2 will be a cut priced bargain compared to moving HoL out of London. It's like we haven't got anything else to spend the money on.
I bet one could buy countless water-cannon and a hatful of garden bridges.
Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc
The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?
Both HS2 and moving the HoL could be moneyspinners for the government in the medium term.
In the former case, it's worth remembering that Intercity services are profitable for the government, and UK PLC can borrow money for as little as 0.7% (10 years). So, if HS2 increases revenues by a billion or so a year on the lines, without increasing operating costs, then there will be a positive spread between operating income and interest expense.
In the latter, the HoL takes up extremely valuable real estate that could be renovated and leased out. Add in the appropriate civil service, and you could be looking at tens - possibly hundreds - of millions in the spread between costs in York and London per year.
I don’t think HS2 will ever make vast profits. However, by reducing delays elsewhere, moving traffic off the roads and by opening up new economic opportunities outside London, what it will do is both cut costs and increase economic activity. That would therefore be beneficial and is one reason why despite the extra expense it makes sense for the new line to be high speed.
Total UK rail revenue is about £11bn. I would be surprised if the West Coast mainline was less than 15% of that number. How much is capacity bring increased with HS2?
This is a smokescreen. Nero fiddling while Rome burns or just Cummings fiddling about?
Apart from anything else, imagine the cost. HS2 will be a cut priced bargain compared to moving HoL out of London. It's like we haven't got anything else to spend the money on.
I bet one could buy countless water-cannon and a hatful of garden bridges.
Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc
The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?
Both HS2 and moving the HoL could be moneyspinners for the government in the medium term.
In the former case, it's worth remembering that Intercity services are profitable for the government, and UK PLC can borrow money for as little as 0.7% (10 years). So, if HS2 increases revenues by a billion or so a year on the lines, without increasing operating costs, then there will be a positive spread between operating income and interest expense.
In the latter, the HoL takes up extremely valuable real estate that could be renovated and leased out. Add in the appropriate civil service, and you could be looking at tens - possibly hundreds - of millions in the spread between costs in York and London per year.
I don’t think HS2 will ever make vast profits. However, by reducing delays elsewhere, moving traffic off the roads and by opening up new economic opportunities outside London, what it will do is both cut costs and increase economic activity. That would therefore be beneficial and is one reason why despite the extra expense it makes sense for the new line to be high speed.
Total UK rail revenue is about £11bn. I would be surprised if the West Coast mainline was less than 15% of that number. How much is capacity bring increased with HS2?
Figures are somewhat inexact, but there are some here:
I am disputing the statement "Those who gamble eventually lose"
They will eventually lose if they keep on gambling. The only way to prevent this is if they cease to gamble before they have lost and do not resume. However, it is possible that when they do lose the loss is smaller than the sum of their wins up to that point. Think that's a fair and accurate summary.
"Eventually" suggests the claim being made is akin to "All political careers end in failure." If I lose a bet, I think I have lost, I don't think I have *eventually* lost. As it happens my last bet was a winner, so it turns out none of the losses was eventual.
This is a smokescreen. Nero fiddling while Rome burns or just Cummings fiddling about?
Apart from anything else, imagine the cost. HS2 will be a cut priced bargain compared to moving HoL out of London. It's like we haven't got anything else to spend the money on.
I bet one could buy countless water-cannon and a hatful of garden bridges.
Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc
The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?
Both HS2 and moving the HoL could be moneyspinners for the government in the medium term.
In the former case, it's worth remembering that Intercity services are profitable for the government, and UK PLC can borrow money for as little as 0.7% (10 years). So, if HS2 increases revenues by a billion or so a year on the lines, without increasing operating costs, then there will be a positive spread between operating income and interest expense.
In the latter, the HoL takes up extremely valuable real estate that could be renovated and leased out. Add in the appropriate civil service, and you could be looking at tens - possibly hundreds - of millions in the spread between costs in York and London per year.
I don’t think HS2 will ever make vast profits. However, by reducing delays elsewhere, moving traffic off the roads and by opening up new economic opportunities outside London, what it will do is both cut costs and increase economic activity. That would therefore be beneficial and is one reason why despite the extra expense it makes sense for the new line to be high speed.
Total UK rail revenue is about £11bn. I would be surprised if the West Coast mainline was less than 15% of that number. How much is capacity bring increased with HS2?
Figures are somewhat inexact, but there are some here:
Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc
The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?
Both HS2 and moving the HoL could be moneyspinners for the government in the medium term.
In the former case, it's worth remembering that Intercity services are profitable for the government, and UK PLC can borrow money for as little as 0.7% (10 years). So, if HS2 increases revenues by a billion or so a year on the lines, without increasing operating costs, then there will be a positive spread between operating income and interest expense.
In the latter, the HoL takes up extremely valuable real estate that could be renovated and leased out. Add in the appropriate civil service, and you could be looking at tens - possibly hundreds - of millions in the spread between costs in York and London per year.
I don’t think HS2 will ever make vast profits. However, by reducing delays elsewhere, moving traffic off the roads and by opening up new economic opportunities outside London, what it will do is both cut costs and increase economic activity. That would therefore be beneficial and is one reason why despite the extra expense it makes sense for the new line to be high speed.
Total UK rail revenue is about £11bn. I would be surprised if the West Coast mainline was less than 15% of that number. How much is capacity bring increased with HS2?
Figures are somewhat inexact, but there are some here:
I would have thought it would be in the region of about 15 pathways per hour for passenger trains, but I don’t have the hard figures to back it up.
It says capacity increases by 576,000 passengers per day. Now, some will be looking haul, and some short. Some will pay a premium for faster more regular service, but at the same time the laws of supply and demand exist. To fill the additional seats will require lower incremental fares.
Shall we say £20/seat on average. That means that it will increase West coast revenue by £10m/day, or £365m/year.
Decent, but not, as you say, enormously profitable
This is a smokescreen. Nero fiddling while Rome burns or just Cummings fiddling about?
Apart from anything else, imagine the cost. HS2 will be a cut priced bargain compared to moving HoL out of London. It's like we haven't got anything else to spend the money on.
I bet one could buy countless water-cannon and a hatful of garden bridges.
Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc
The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?
Both HS2 and moving the HoL could be moneyspinners for the government in the medium term.
In the former case, it's worth remembering that Intercity services are profitable for the government, and UK PLC can borrow money for as little as 0.7% (10 years). So, if HS2 increases revenues by a billion or so a year on the lines, without increasing operating costs, then there will be a positive spread between operating income and interest expense.
In the latter, the HoL takes up extremely valuable real estate that could be renovated and leased out. Add in the appropriate civil service, and you could be looking at tens - possibly hundreds - of millions in the spread between costs in York and London per year.
I don’t think HS2 will ever make vast profits. However, by reducing delays elsewhere, moving traffic off the roads and by opening up new economic opportunities outside London, what it will do is both cut costs and increase economic activity. That would therefore be beneficial and is one reason why despite the extra expense it makes sense for the new line to be high speed.
Total UK rail revenue is about £11bn. I would be surprised if the West Coast mainline was less than 15% of that number. How much is capacity bring increased with HS2?
Figures are somewhat inexact, but there are some here:
Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc
The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?
Both HS2 and moving the HoL could be moneyspinners for the government in the medium term.
In the former case, it's worth remembering that Intercity services are profitable for the government, and UK PLC can borrow money for as little as 0.7% (10 years). So, if HS2 increases revenues by a billion or so a year on the lines, without increasing operating costs, then there will be a positive spread between operating income and interest expense.
In the latter, the HoL takes up extremely valuable real estate that could be renovated and leased out. Add in the appropriate civil service, and you could be looking at tens - possibly hundreds - of millions in the spread between costs in York and London per year.
I don’t think HS2 will ever make vast profits. However, by reducing delays elsewhere, moving traffic off the roads and by opening up new economic opportunities outside London, what it will do is both cut costs and increase economic activity. That would therefore be beneficial and is one reason why despite the extra expense it makes sense for the new line to be high speed.
Total UK rail revenue is about £11bn. I would be surprised if the West Coast mainline was less than 15% of that number. How much is capacity bring increased with HS2?
Figures are somewhat inexact, but there are some here:
I would have thought it would be in the region of about 15 pathways per hour for passenger trains, but I don’t have the hard figures to back it up.
It says capacity increases by 576,000 passengers per day. Now, some will be looking haul, and some short. Some will pay a premium for faster more regular service, but at the same time the laws of supply and demand exist. To fill the additional seats will require lower incremental fares.
Shall we say £20/seat on average. That means that it will increase West coast revenue by £10m/day, or £365m/year.
Decent, but not, as you say, enormously profitable
But at the same time, if (if!) the figures on freight are right, that would potentially take around 11,000 lorries off the M6 every day. Now that really would save huge sums in terms of lost time, wear and tear to the surface, accidents etc.
Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc
The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?
Both HS2 and moving the HoL could be moneyspinners for the government in the medium term.
In the former case, it's worth remembering that Intercity services are profitable for the government, and UK PLC can borrow money for as little as 0.7% (10 years). So, if HS2 increases revenues by a billion or so a year on the lines, without increasing operating costs, then there will be a positive spread between operating income and interest expense.
In the latter, the HoL takes up extremely valuable real estate that could be renovated and leased out. Add in the appropriate civil service, and you could be looking at tens - possibly hundreds - of millions in the spread between costs in York and London per year.
I don’t think HS2 will ever make vast profits. However, by reducing delays elsewhere, moving traffic off the roads and by opening up new economic opportunities outside London, what it will do is both cut costs and increase economic activity. That would therefore be beneficial and is one reason why despite the extra expense it makes sense for the new line to be high speed.
Total UK rail revenue is about £11bn. I would be surprised if the West Coast mainline was less than 15% of that number. How much is capacity bring increased with HS2?
Figures are somewhat inexact, but there are some here:
I would have thought it would be in the region of about 15 pathways per hour for passenger trains, but I don’t have the hard figures to back it up.
It says capacity increases by 576,000 passengers per day. Now, some will be looking haul, and some short. Some will pay a premium for faster more regular service, but at the same time the laws of supply and demand exist. To fill the additional seats will require lower incremental fares.
Shall we say £20/seat on average. That means that it will increase West coast revenue by £10m/day, or £365m/year.
Decent, but not, as you say, enormously profitable
"Eventually" suggests the claim being made is akin to "All political careers end in failure." If I lose a bet, I think I have lost, I don't think I have *eventually* lost. As it happens my last bet was a winner, so it turns out none of the losses was eventual.
I would say that "eventually" has the air of something that has been a long time coming but does not necessarily also imply inevitability (although it can do and often does).
So if you lost a bet having just had ten winners in a row you would probably think to yourself "Oh, I have eventually lost" and you might - you might - also think "Ah well, it was bound to happen eventually." The 1st eventually there being "long time coming" and the 2nd being both that AND "inevitable."
Feeling privileged to have this sort of exchange. Cannot get it anywhere else.
CLAIMING there is a mandate from the Scottish people for a second independence referendum is a “highly dubious exercise”, according to top pollster Professor Sir John Curtice.
Many charities historically were based in EC1 because it used to be a place with low rents. Save The Children, the RNID and many others used to be in the area. Of course, it’s a lot more expensive now.
Shelter might benefit from a long lease (it own the freehold). And, as it happens, if you’re looking for a location at the epicentre of homelessness in the UK, EC1 is a reasonable choice.
Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc
The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?
Both HS2 and moving the HoL could be moneyspinners for the government in the medium term.
In the former case, it's worth remembering that Intercity services are profitable for the government, and UK PLC can borrow money for as little as 0.7% (10 years). So, if HS2 increases revenues by a billion or so a year on the lines, without increasing operating costs, then there will be a positive spread between operating income and interest expense.
In the latter, the HoL takes up extremely valuable real estate that could be renovated and leased out. Add in the appropriate civil service, and you could be looking at tens - possibly hundreds - of millions in the spread between costs in York and London per year.
I don’t think HS2 will ever make vast profits. However, by reducing delays elsewhere, moving traffic off the roads and by opening up new economic opportunities outside London, what it will do is both cut costs and increase economic activity. That would therefore be beneficial and is one reason why despite the extra expense it makes sense for the new line to be high speed.
Total UK rail revenue is about £11bn. I would be surprised if the West Coast mainline was less than 15% of that number. How much is capacity bring increased with HS2?
Figures are somewhat inexact, but there are some here:
I would have thought it would be in the region of about 15 pathways per hour for passenger trains, but I don’t have the hard figures to back it up.
It says capacity increases by 576,000 passengers per day. Now, some will be looking haul, and some short. Some will pay a premium for faster more regular service, but at the same time the laws of supply and demand exist. To fill the additional seats will require lower incremental fares.
Shall we say £20/seat on average. That means that it will increase West coast revenue by £10m/day, or £365m/year.
Decent, but not, as you say, enormously profitable
According to my WeatherPro app, it’s going to stay dry in Port Elizabeth tomorrow until 1700. Not sure whether a British app is the best consult though? Surely we will turn SA over.
I don't have much much sympathy for Toryism, Unionism or Brexit the cause of Scottish independence but I obviously accept that many people hold those views sincerely and that they can also subscribe to other principles such as belief in democracy, consistency and honesty in politics. However the Scotch Brexit question is always useful in winnowing them out from the hypocrites, cowards and liars who after endless whining about the unaccountable EU United Kindom denying them their sovereignty, being bullied by Project Fear and voters not being listened to, are happy to let all that bad shit happen in aid of their cause aspire to be of an organisation where laws are ultimately decided by structures in which Scotland has 6 out of 736 MEPs, not 59 out of 650. It's a real sheep from the goats test.
The out of the UK into the EU faction, which seems to be in the overwhelming majority, makes no sense.
I believe that England's vote to leave the EU should be respected. I believe Scotland should be allowed to decide if it wants another vote on membership of the UK. I believe in an indy Scotland, if there's a demand for it, that there should be a vote on EU membership and/or a return to the UK. What about you?
I used to have a lot of respect for Sillars (I spent a day campaigning with him before the 2014 indy ref) but now it just seems that he'll take one of his aspirations (Scotland being out of the EU) at the cost of what should be the superior principle, that people in Scotland should be able to decide their own future.
You're mixing two separate arguments, probably deliberately, but meh. We can argue the rights and wrongs of how, when and why a second indyref can and should be held, but that's entirely different from the argument about what Scotland's final destination should be.
The SNP overwhelmingly supports Scotland being a small nation, separate from the UK, but within the EU. EU law is supreme over member state law, and its competencies are increasing. It has its own currency, central bank, embassies and foreign policy. It is progressing toward having its own army. 6 MEPs out of 736!! What sort of independence is that?
According to my WeatherPro app, it’s going to stay dry in Port Elizabeth tomorrow until 1700. Not sure whether a British app is the best consult though? Surely we will turn SA over.
Many charities historically were based in EC1 because it used to be a place with low rents. Save The Children, the RNID and many others used to be in the area. Of course, it’s a lot more expensive now.
Shelter might benefit from a long lease (it own the freehold). And, as it happens, if you’re looking for a location at the epicentre of homelessness in the UK, EC1 is a reasonable choice.
It is not just the cost of the rent/lease that is the issue.
A while back, I listened to a Radio program on low pay among the young. There was a guy who was working for little pay for a charity in central London (my recollection is that it was an animal welfare charity).
He was paying some astronomical rent for a shithole in Croydon, and had little money left after rent+bills+Council Tax+Oyster card.
How could you improve his life?
He wanted to dedicate himself to a cause he believed in, and was happy to accept he was never going to be rich. But, he not unnaturally wanted a bit more than the scraps he was left with.
You could improve his life by removing the charity from London. There was absolutely no need for the charity to be in London. Especially now in this age of zoom.us.
It is not just the rent, it is living conditions for the people who work in the charities.
According to my WeatherPro app, it’s going to stay dry in Port Elizabeth tomorrow until 1700. Not sure whether a British app is the best consult though? Surely we will turn SA over.
Depends on whether Dom does what Dom does Bess...
No, we’ll Root them out. We have the Wood on them now; it fair Stokes the fires of national pride.... Broadly speaking.
And to amplify my earlier comments, King's College, Imperial College, London, UCL and Queen Mary should all be relocated from Central London.
I know plenty of academics from Imperial. There are all feckin miserable, as they have to live miles and miles away from Kensington, and travel a gruelling & horrible commute.
No member of the faculty can afford to live anywhere near Kensington (or the Strand or Bloomsbury for that matter).
If you want to increase the sum of human misery, locate an organisation in London ... so your staff have a miserable journey on overpacked public transport from some dire & expensive rental on the outskirts.
If you want to increase the sum of human happiness, move the organisation out of London ... & make your staff happy.
And to amplify my earlier comments, King's College, London, Imperial College, London, UCL and Queen Mary should all be relocated from Central London.
I know plenty of academics from Imperial. There are all feckin miserable, as they have to live miles and miles away from Kensington, and travel a gruelling & horrible commute.
No member of the faculty can afford to live anywhere near Kensington (or the Strand or Bloomsbury for that matter).
If you want to increase the sum of human misery, locate an organisation in London ... so your staff have a miserable journey on overpacked public transport from some dire & expensive rental on the outskirts.
If you want to increase the sum of human happiness, move the organisation out of London ... & make your staff happy.
Students are not going to see St Mary Mead as an acceptable substitute for London. Faculty members who dislike London have plenty of alternatives elsewhere.
And to amplify my earlier comments, King's College, Imperial College, London, UCL and Queen Mary should all be relocated from Central London.
I know plenty of academics from Imperial. There are all feckin miserable, as they have to live miles and miles away from Kensington, and travel a gruelling & horrible commute.
No member of the faculty can afford to live anywhere near Kensington (or the Strand or Bloomsbury for that matter).
If you want to increase the sum of human misery, locate an organisation in London ... so your staff have a miserable journey on overpacked public transport from some dire & expensive rental on the outskirts.
If you want to increase the sum of human happiness, move the organisation out of London ... & make your staff happy.
Sir, with an attitude like that you are neither Samuel nor Boris Johnson!
You're mixing two separate arguments, probably deliberately, but meh. We can argue the rights and wrongs of how, when and why a second indyref can and should be held, but that's entirely different from the argument about what Scotland's final destination should be.
The SNP overwhelmingly supports Scotland being a small nation, separate from the UK, but within the EU. EU law is supreme over member state law, and its competencies are increasing. It has its own currency, central bank, embassies and foreign policy. It is progressing toward having its own army. 6 MEPs out of 736!! What sort of independence is that?
You're suggesting an indy Scotland would only have 6 MEPs (the same as Malta with less than a 10th of Scotland's population), probably deliberately, but meh.
If you're so confident of your arguments about Scotland's final destination, put them to the test.
Mine tend to revolve around this bedtime story.
A Tale of Two Unions.
One union insists that we keep nuclear weapons 25 miles from our largest city, tell us when we have to go to war, decides who is and isn't allowed to enter and live in our country, decides how news and information is broadcast to us, decides how we engage with foreign countries, decides how our industry and businesses should be run, decides how our natural resources should be utilised, decides what money we use and tells us if and when we can decide whether to remain a member of this union.
And to amplify my earlier comments, King's College, London, Imperial College, London, UCL and Queen Mary should all be relocated from Central London.
I know plenty of academics from Imperial. There are all feckin miserable, as they have to live miles and miles away from Kensington, and travel a gruelling & horrible commute.
No member of the faculty can afford to live anywhere near Kensington (or the Strand or Bloomsbury for that matter).
If you want to increase the sum of human misery, locate an organisation in London ... so your staff have a miserable journey on overpacked public transport from some dire & expensive rental on the outskirts.
If you want to increase the sum of human happiness, move the organisation out of London ... & make your staff happy.
Students are not going to see St Mary Mead as an acceptable substitute for London. Faculty members who dislike London have plenty of alternatives elsewhere.
The interests of the staff (cleaners, catering staff, lecturers, professors) -- who in general are at these organisations for many years -- seem to me to be more important than the interests of the students (who are temporary).
And in any case, I don't believe that you speak for students. Especially as you went to Durham, a bit bigger than St Mary Mead, but considerably smaller than London.
There are many, many very highly successful universities in small towns -- Princeton, Yale, Gottingen, Tubingen, Durham, St Andrews, Leiden, Utrecht.
It is characteristically ridiculous of you to suggest the choice is London or St Mary Mead.
And to amplify my earlier comments, King's College, London, Imperial College, London, UCL and Queen Mary should all be relocated from Central London.
I know plenty of academics from Imperial. There are all feckin miserable, as they have to live miles and miles away from Kensington, and travel a gruelling & horrible commute.
No member of the faculty can afford to live anywhere near Kensington (or the Strand or Bloomsbury for that matter).
If you want to increase the sum of human misery, locate an organisation in London ... so your staff have a miserable journey on overpacked public transport from some dire & expensive rental on the outskirts.
If you want to increase the sum of human happiness, move the organisation out of London ... & make your staff happy.
Students are not going to see St Mary Mead as an acceptable substitute for London. Faculty members who dislike London have plenty of alternatives elsewhere.
The interests of the staff (cleaners, catering staff, lecturers, professors) -- who in general are at these organisations for many years -- seem to me to be more important than the interests of the students (who are temporary).
And in any case, I don't believe that you speak for students. Especially as you went to Durham, a bit bigger than St Mary Mead, but considerably smaller than London.
There are many, many very highly successful universities in small towns -- Princeton, Yale, Gottingen, Tubingen, Durham, St Andrews, Leiden, Utrecht.
It is characteristically ridiculous of you to suggest the choice is London or St Mary Mead.
Students who have chosen a London university will not be attracted to a more parochial destination, any more than the IOC considered Birmingham or Manchester as appropriate destinations for the Olympics. That other students are content with a smaller town destination does not invalidate that observation.
Comments
They need de Kock to stay in until the climax.
No doubt he will do it today just to spite me.
Lifetime loss or gain is irrelevant.
(Edit - that’s a joke, btw.)
1. It was issuing mortgages at well over 100% LTV
2a. Its business model required it to rapidly sell on the debt it had issued as bonds. If it could not then the debt it still had on its books was the riskiest (most recently issued) debt
2b. Northern Rock dominated market making in the bonds it had issued. This meant that as things went bad, it was supposed to step up and buy them from its customers.
As I explain before starting, this requires phenomenal breath control, and it’s pretty bloody difficult to find places to breathe in the song and all.
In the former case, it's worth remembering that Intercity services are profitable for the government, and UK PLC can borrow money for as little as 0.7% (10 years). So, if HS2 increases revenues by a billion or so a year on the lines, without increasing operating costs, then there will be a positive spread between operating income and interest expense.
In the latter, the HoL takes up extremely valuable real estate that could be renovated and leased out. Add in the appropriate civil service, and you could be looking at tens - possibly hundreds - of millions in the spread between costs in York and London per year.
Don't take this the wrong way, but as you said you were ill, are you on some kind of medication that makes you behave strangely as a side effect?
The things you learn on PB...
We’re discussing the future actions of the Government. It was asserted that Boris gambles and that’s been one of the reasons for his success.
If he continues to gamble, then eventually he will lose. It won’t always pay off.
What on earth is controversial here?
https://twitter.com/billabowman/status/1218853938444886017?s=20
South Africa are officially buggered. The only thing that can save them now is heavy rain for the next 26 hours. This is an area currently in drought....
Every cloud...
Ah, my coat...
I know this because of the number of times it has happened to England recently.
https://twitter.com/secretstranger9/status/1218517068611489792?s=20
https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/89694/hs2-capacity-britains-existing-rail/
I would have thought it would be in the region of about 15 pathways per hour for passenger trains, but I don’t have the hard figures to back it up.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480647/annex-demand-and-capacity-pressures.pdf#page39
Bottom line is, it would rather more than double existing capacity, from 16tph to 41 tph.
Shall we say £20/seat on average. That means that it will increase West coast revenue by £10m/day, or £365m/year.
Decent, but not, as you say, enormously profitable
So if you lost a bet having just had ten winners in a row you would probably think to yourself "Oh, I have eventually lost" and you might - you might - also think "Ah well, it was bound to happen eventually." The 1st eventually there being "long time coming" and the 2nd being both that AND "inevitable."
Feeling privileged to have this sort of exchange. Cannot get it anywhere else.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18171026.indyref2-mandate-claims-dubious-says-sir-john-curtis/
Shelter might benefit from a long lease (it own the freehold). And, as it happens, if you’re looking for a location at the epicentre of homelessness in the UK, EC1 is a reasonable choice.
Very good, MrD
That album came out more than a quarter century ago. It's nearer to the moon landings in history than it is to today.
Now we are burning EU flags?
And Tony Blair promised us things could only get better!
The SNP overwhelmingly supports Scotland being a small nation, separate from the UK, but within the EU. EU law is supreme over member state law, and its competencies are increasing. It has its own currency, central bank, embassies and foreign policy. It is progressing toward having its own army. 6 MEPs out of 736!! What sort of independence is that?
Or that she was only involved to start with because of her *cough*friendship*cough* with Len McCluskey.
She really is an absolute walking disaster area.
A while back, I listened to a Radio program on low pay among the young. There was a guy who was working for little pay for a charity in central London (my recollection is that it was an animal welfare charity).
He was paying some astronomical rent for a shithole in Croydon, and had little money left after rent+bills+Council Tax+Oyster card.
How could you improve his life?
He wanted to dedicate himself to a cause he believed in, and was happy to accept he was never going to be rich. But, he not unnaturally wanted a bit more than the scraps he was left with.
You could improve his life by removing the charity from London. There was absolutely no need for the charity to be in London. Especially now in this age of zoom.us.
It is not just the rent, it is living conditions for the people who work in the charities.
Isn't it time Len got a peerage or at the very least a knighthood to go with the grace and favour house, car and staff?
I know plenty of academics from Imperial. There are all feckin miserable, as they have to live miles and miles away from Kensington, and travel a gruelling & horrible commute.
No member of the faculty can afford to live anywhere near Kensington (or the Strand or Bloomsbury for that matter).
If you want to increase the sum of human misery, locate an organisation in London ... so your staff have a miserable journey on overpacked public transport from some dire & expensive rental on the outskirts.
If you want to increase the sum of human happiness, move the organisation out of London ... & make your staff happy.
Dark horse chaps, dark horse.
If you're so confident of your arguments about Scotland's final destination, put them to the test.
Mine tend to revolve around this bedtime story.
A Tale of Two Unions.
One union insists that we keep nuclear weapons 25 miles from our largest city, tell us when we have to go to war, decides who is and isn't allowed to enter and live in our country, decides how news and information is broadcast to us, decides how we engage with foreign countries, decides how our industry and businesses should be run, decides how our natural resources should be utilised, decides what money we use and tells us if and when we can decide whether to remain a member of this union.
The other doesn't.
The end.
Ps Everyone did not live happily ever after.
And in any case, I don't believe that you speak for students. Especially as you went to Durham, a bit bigger than St Mary Mead, but considerably smaller than London.
There are many, many very highly successful universities in small towns -- Princeton, Yale, Gottingen, Tubingen, Durham, St Andrews, Leiden, Utrecht.
It is characteristically ridiculous of you to suggest the choice is London or St Mary Mead.