UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Ostroeuropa]

i don't really get the ideological differences between Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn. Would it be the difference between social liberal and social democrat, or is he actually a trotskyite?

Corbyn has proposed at least some nationalizations, like the railways.

[Liriena]

i don't really get the ideological differences between Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn. Would it be the difference between social liberal and social democrat, or is he actually a trotskyite?

I get the feeling that Corbyn may be more of a democratic socialist than a social democrat... but yeah, the former.

[Dejanic]

Corbyn is just a Soc Dem who is actually a real Soc Dem, unlike neo-Libs like Blair who call themselves Soc Dems. Everything he advocates is for under the pretence of Capitalism.

People who call him a Trot don't know what a Trot is.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Jezza is a 1970s-style social democrat with a few wacky and slightly disconcerting far-left ideas on military and foreign policy. Or at least that's how he's shown himself since becoming leader.

His Tonyness is an opportunistic Thatcher-lite neocon leftkin. They're quite different and Tony can't butt out of being constantly critical and trying to undermine the current leadership because their very success undermines the legitimacy of his particular compromises as "the only way" and therefore the last few embers of him being seen to have a positive legacy. The hands of history's bouncers are on his shoulders.

[Liriena]

Jezza is a 1970s-style social democrat with a few wacky and slightly disconcerting far-left ideas on military and foreign policy. Or at least that's how he's shown himself since becoming leader.

His Tonyness is an opportunistic Thatcher-lite neocon leftkin. They're quite different and Tony can't butt out of being constantly critical and trying to undermine the current leadership because their very success undermines the legitimacy of his particular compromises as "the only way" and therefore the last few embers of him being seen to have a positive legacy. The hands of history's bouncers are on his shoulders.

This is a good take.

Honestly, Tony Blair should just go gently into that good political night. Fellow already squandered much of his legacy during the Bush years.

[Liriena]

Corbyn is just a Soc Dem who is actually a real Soc Dem, unlike neo-Libs like Blair who call themselves Soc Dems. Everything he advocates is for under the pretence of Capitalism.

People who call him a Trot don't know what a Trot is.

I mean, it'd be easier to convince me that he's a Titoist than it'd be to convince me that he's a Trotskyist.

[Ostroeuropa]

Jezza is a 1970s-style social democrat with a few wacky and slightly disconcerting far-left ideas on military and foreign policy. Or at least that's how he's shown himself since becoming leader.

His Tonyness is an opportunistic Thatcher-lite neocon leftkin. They're quite different and Tony can't butt out of being constantly critical and trying to undermine the current leadership because their very success undermines the legitimacy of his particular compromises as "the only way" and therefore the last few embers of him being seen to have a positive legacy. The hands of history's bouncers are on his shoulders.

This is a good take.

Honestly, Tony Blair should just go gently into that good political night. Fellow already squandered much of his legacy during the Bush years.

Pretty much.
Hopefully his legalizing of discrimination will be one of the things he and his ilk gets remembered poorly for. I'm more inclined to forgive him over Iraq than his bullshit economic and social policies, the context of history was suggestive Iraq might actually have worked out okay and led to a south korea on the levant, but there is no context where "Hey, our neutrally worded law banning things like 'No irish need apply' means your feminist prejudice is illegal, sorry." and him to go "Well, we'll just rewrite that law!".

I'd argue that the modern progressive movement in general is the desperation of pseudo-tories trying hard to pretend they are left wingers and overdoing it to compensate for their tiny, tiny, economic leftism.

[Liriena]

This is a good take.

Honestly, Tony Blair should just go gently into that good political night. Fellow already squandered much of his legacy during the Bush years.

Pretty much.
Hopefully his legalizing of discrimination will be one of the things he and his ilk gets remembered poorly for.

I mean, if Gordon Brown and David Cameron can shut up and fade into obscurity, so can Tony Blair.

[Ostroeuropa]

Pretty much.
Hopefully his legalizing of discrimination will be one of the things he and his ilk gets remembered poorly for.

I mean, if Gordon Brown and David Cameron can shut up and fade into obscurity, so can Tony Blair.

If I were prime minister, i'd have his house raided and him black hooded along with a bunch of the MPs of the time, and dragged before a human rights tribunal to go over the torture allegations...
after 72 hours of detention with no explanation what's going on, still wearing the bag. But that's partially because i'd be the living embodiment of controversy for the sake of it after running out of obvious and sensible shit to do.

[Liriena]

This is a good take.

Honestly, Tony Blair should just go gently into that good political night. Fellow already squandered much of his legacy during the Bush years.

Pretty much.
Hopefully his legalizing of discrimination will be one of the things he and his ilk gets remembered poorly for. I'm more inclined to forgive him over Iraq than his bullshit economic and social policies, the context of history was suggestive Iraq might actually have worked out okay and led to a south korea on the levant, but there is no context where "Hey, our neutrally worded law banning things like 'No irish need apply' means your feminist prejudice is illegal, sorry." and him to go "Well, we'll just rewrite that law!".

I'd argue that the modern progressive movement in general is the desperation of pseudo-tories trying hard to pretend they are left wingers and overdoing it to compensate for their tiny, tiny, economic leftism.

I actually agree somewhat with the underlined.

[Eibenland]

Pretty much.
Hopefully his legalizing of discrimination will be one of the things he and his ilk gets remembered poorly for.

I mean, if Gordon Brown and David Cameron can shut up and fade into obscurity, so can Tony Blair.

Brown and Cameron still give the occasional speech or interview.

[Liriena]

I mean, if Gordon Brown and David Cameron can shut up and fade into obscurity, so can Tony Blair.

If I were prime minister, i'd have his house raided and him black hooded along with a bunch of the MPs of the time, and dragged before a human rights tribunal, to convene after 72 hours of detention with no explanation what's going on, still wearing the bag. But that's partially because i'd be the living embodiment of controversy for the sake of it after running out of obvious and sensible shit to do.

Hey, how dare you plagiarize my Menem AU fanfiction!

[Liriena]

I mean, if Gordon Brown and David Cameron can shut up and fade into obscurity, so can Tony Blair.

Brown and Cameron still give the occasional speech or interview.

With or without the pig's head?

[Ostroeuropa]

If I were prime minister, i'd have his house raided and him black hooded along with a bunch of the MPs of the time, and dragged before a human rights tribunal, to convene after 72 hours of detention with no explanation what's going on, still wearing the bag. But that's partially because i'd be the living embodiment of controversy for the sake of it after running out of obvious and sensible shit to do.

Hey, how dare you plagiarize my Menem AU fanfiction!

Dead serious though.
I'd pull the 72 hours detention shit on all the MPS that voted for it, and their families, as frequently as was legal to do so, until they fled the country. Pay evil unto evil.

If they crack and beg on camera and admit it was fucked up and authoritarian of them, i'd stop.

That's partially because I suspect a substantial section of society wouldn't support a regime without the occasional authoritarian excess. May as well direct it at appropriate targets while trying to ensure the sentiment doesn't pass ot other generations. And turning all the authortiarian crap they've passed since the war on terror on the ruling classes and brutalizing them with it might get it to sink in. Don't pass any new measures, just use the ones they passed, against them, and only them, as often as possible.

Brown and Cameron still give the occasional speech or interview.

With or without the pig's head?

Pig was dead, no kinkshame.

[Trumptonium]

I'd argue that the modern progressive movement in general is the desperation of pseudo-tories trying hard to pretend they are left wingers and overdoing it to compensate for their tiny, tiny, economic leftism.

Probably utter rejects who are unwanted and found a new home in something that is easier to take over.

Only because Carillion has gone under and there's no one left to bid for the contract...

We could always accept a bid from a company in the EU...

...Oh, right.

You must be terribly distraught to find out that the vast majority of M&A activity in the UK isn't even from the EU, but from the US and the Middle East, and increasingly APAC and Canada.

[Trumptonium]

The FT suggests that the Pension Protection Fund might have to shell out up to £800 million in bailing out Carillion's pension fund. The simple option would be for the state to seize the assets of the company's previous administration in order to make the difference.

This wouldn't actually make a difference as Carillion has 1.5 billion of debts. They need to be paid first before any potential covering of the pension deficit. This is also a pension deficit for just one year, and doesn't make up for the next ~50 years of Carillion pension receivers who, in your suggestion of the government taking over the company to sell the assets to cover the deficit, would receive nothing at all ever again, bar the state pension. Company pensions are absolutely dependent on the company being a going concern for the lifetime of its receivers.

Unless of course you're suggesting to take over the company free of charge and then ignoring its debts, but then that's not how international finance works and the NHS will fall next month as the UK won't be able to borrow above junk bond rates from the financial markets as there'll be no trust in the UK to pay them back. Moreover, and rather more importantly, the overwhelming majority of those debts are to UK banks, the largest of which belongs to RBS, which itself is on the brink to say the least.

Thoughts on the Carillion saga?

Nationalise it.

I don't oppose this short-term, and in fact think that much of Carillion's outsourced functions are in reality better performed through the public sector, but this doesn't solve the problem, it just shifts it elsewhere.

Carillion's problems were cash flow, especially from contracts in the Middle East and China. The British Government isn't any more likely to get money from Abu Dhabi than a private company is.

Effectively, Carillion is just a classic example of big profits but small cash flows. You can easily mislead investors with high profit figures but not actually realising them, even though its against conventional accountancy reporting standards. This applies to companies like Boeing and Carillion. I think the pipeline for was circa 50 billion (!), order book for Carillion was something like 17 billion, versus their revenue of 5 billion a year, versus their cash held (working capital) of around 40 million in 2016.

In case that didn't let the jaw drop, let me give an analogy. It's roughly equivalent to a lemonade stand reporting income of a Tesco Express, and if that wasn't enough, it's 20 years into the future.

I studied enough accountancy to know that their financial statements are basically borderline illegal horseshit. Their assets were only about 320 million, of which half was in property. That means their interest cover must have been something around 20%. Which explains why banks stopped revolving credit facilities to Carillion, it's equivalent to someone having debts of 500 000 and their only asset is a flat worth 100 000. You would only continue giving them money if you were Wonga, or borderline insane.

The bulk of their assets came from intangible assets, which is another word for valuing air. Well, not quite, but valuing what isn't physical. For example, reputation, patents, guaranteed contracts etc. These are absolutely useless in liquidation.

And they also took the piss by taking government contract income (PPPS) and using it to distribute it in dividends instead of ensuring they have the capacity to carry out the work contracted.

What's done is done. It was really bad governance, terrifyingly bad corporate management, and the fault lies in whoever were the auditors of Carillion for signing off those accounts as a true and fair representation of the financial health of the company. The company was a train wreck a year ago already. And the former two CEOs and CFOs need a good beating too.

[Val Halla]

If Vince Cable becomes PM do we get better wifi?

[Fartsniffage]

Carillion's problems were cash flow, especially from contracts in the Middle East and China. The British Government isn't any more likely to get money from Abu Dhabi than a private company is.

Carillion doesn't own fighter-bombers...

[Trumptonium]

Carillion's problems were cash flow, especially from contracts in the Middle East and China. The British Government isn't any more likely to get money from Abu Dhabi than a private company is.

Carillion doesn't own fighter-bombers...

what?

[Dooom35796821595]

If Vince Cable becomes PM do we get better wifi?

No, he'll just change the measurement system to make it look faster, say mega bits per minute, but then cut the existing speed and charge you more for it.

[Trumptonium]

If Vince Cable becomes PM do we get better wifi?

No, he'll just change the measurement system to make it look faster, say mega bits per minute, but then cut the existing speed and charge you more for it.

tfw "mbpm" is not even 1Gb for the UK average

[States of Glory]

I mean, if Gordon Brown and David Cameron can shut up and fade into obscurity, so can Tony Blair.

Brown and Cameron still give the occasional speech or interview.

I know that Brown gave a pro-union speech during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. I'm not sure what Cameron's done since his resignation.

Brown and Cameron still give the occasional speech or interview.

With or without the pig's head?

The pig's head was FAKE NEWS.

We could always accept a bid from a company in the EU...

...Oh, right.

You must be terribly distraught to find out that the vast majority of M&A activity in the UK isn't even from the EU, but from the US and the Middle East, and increasingly APAC and Canada.

Terribly distraught that a stupid joke was exposed as a stupid joke? I'm afraid not, though I thank you for your concern nonetheless.

[Dejanic]

I know that Brown gave a pro-union speech during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. I'm not sure what Cameron's done since his resignation.

He's Chinese noaw.

[Trumptonium]

Brown and Cameron still give the occasional speech or interview.

I know that Brown gave a pro-union speech during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. I'm not sure what Cameron's done since his resignation.

With or without the pig's head?

The pig's head was FAKE NEWS.

You must be terribly distraught to find out that the vast majority of M&A activity in the UK isn't even from the EU, but from the US and the Middle East, and increasingly APAC and Canada.

Terribly distraught that a stupid joke was exposed as a stupid joke? I'm afraid not, though I thank you for your concern nonetheless.

this is the second time

you're not really good at this sarcasm thing..

[Questers]

The FT suggests that the Pension Protection Fund might have to shell out up to £800 million in bailing out Carillion's pension fund. The simple option would be for the state to seize the assets of the company's previous administration in order to make the difference.

This wouldn't actually make a difference as Carillion has 1.5 billion of debts. They need to be paid first before any potential covering of the pension deficit. This is also a pension deficit for just one year, and doesn't make up for the next ~50 years of Carillion pension receivers who, in your suggestion of the government taking over the company to sell the assets to cover the deficit, would receive nothing at all ever again, bar the state pension. Company pensions are absolutely dependent on the company being a going concern for the lifetime of its receivers.

Unless of course you're suggesting to take over the company free of charge and then ignoring its debts, but then that's not how international finance works and the NHS will fall next month as the UK won't be able to borrow above junk bond rates from the financial markets as there'll be no trust in the UK to pay them back. Moreover, and rather more importantly, the overwhelming majority of those debts are to UK banks, the largest of which belongs to RBS, which itself is on the brink to say the least.

Nationalising the company and writing off its debt is not going to increase the cost of bonds enough to make "the NHS fall". It might degrade some trust in the UK government... but not a lot. Last year France took control of STX shipyards. The French government has a long history of controlling enterprise via the stock it holds in them. France has a lower credit rating than Britain, but so what? They can take out loans. The situation here is clearly unusual.The fact is that almost all international creditors will already recognise what you admit below:

Effectively, Carillion is just a classic example of big profits but small cash flows. You can easily mislead investors with high profit figures but not actually realising them, even though its against conventional accountancy reporting standards. This applies to companies like Boeing and Carillion. I think the pipeline for was circa 50 billion (!), order book for Carillion was something like 17 billion, versus their revenue of 5 billion a year, versus their cash held (working capital) of around 40 million in 2016.

I studied enough accountancy to know that their financial statements are basically borderline illegal horseshit. Their assets were only about 320 million, of which half was in property. That means their interest cover must have been something around 20%. Which explains why banks stopped revolving credit facilities to Carillion, it's equivalent to someone having debts of 500 000 and their only asset is a flat worth 100 000. You would only continue giving them money if you were Wonga, or borderline insane.

What's done is done. It was really bad governance, terrifyingly bad corporate management, and the fault lies in whoever were the auditors of Carillion for signing off those accounts as a true and fair representation of the financial health of the company. The company was a train wreck a year ago already. And the former two CEOs and CFOs need a good beating too.

The company was horrendously managed, potentially illegally, thousands of peoples pensions and jobs are at stake, and the temporary intervention of government is a legitimate measure in order to restore stability. Considering the task of supporting the pension schemes now falls to government, it's a matter of stabilising the public finances. I'm not proposing a communist revolution: this isn't even contentious elsewhere. If we were to do it people would still loan money to us just as they do today. If we punish the people responsible then the chance of it happening again is reduced.