Printable View
Don't try to swish away your lack of writing skills Caravan head.Quote:
Originally Posted by swaledale
Anyway, just for you, so you know what you're missing and the mayhem to come under Labour after the Tory mash up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgRx...B9%F0%9F%87%AD
The real Conservative plot is a subversive struggle against reality. In last Thursday’s elections, the Tories lost 397 seats and Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens gained a total of 394; in Blackpool South, the by-election swing from the Conservatives to Labour was more than 20 per cent for the fifth time in this parliament alone.
So it requires magical thinking of a high order to conclude that the public’s message to the Government was: be more Right-wing. Yet this is precisely what many of Rishi Sunak’s Tory antagonists have been claiming.
Goldman Sachs have removed the cap on banker bonuses. The rest will follow. 'kin disgrace.
Thames Water to pay out £2Bn in dividends when there's many billions of repairs their system needs. The amount needed to complete the repairs is approximately equal to the amount of dividend paid in the last decade or so. Ergo, had they not paid dividends, the repairs could have been done. As it is, Thames water is on the brink of going bust. The Billions required to repair the system they've allowed to disintegrate will come from the taxpayer as no other company, in their right mind, would take on that kind of commitment as they know it would burn any profit... unless the taxpayer foots the bill.
Should the taxpayer pay for shareholder dividends, be they current or historic? Hell, no.
If the taxpayer has to rescue Thames Water from insolvency then obviously that effectively renationalises it and solves the problem in terms of shareholders giving it up for nothing. Either way round the taxpayer will pay for the necessary repairs but letting it go bust first maybe gets the best deal for us.
Downside - our pension funds are probably the biggest shareholders in TW, so those with private pensions lose twice over
But don't go running away with the notion that the dividends are being handed out for no good reason to flash city guys in bowlers hats quaffing champagne and ordering new Ferraris.
There is a basic dividend cost for any equity capital that has escalated as interest rates rise, and most of the shareholders will be pension funds for normal working people. These funds need fuel to grow and keep pension projections slightly inflation proofed.
This does demonstrate the fragility of any pluralist economy - ie one that is dependent on funding from "little people" - which, however dressed up, lies at the core of UK economy. Routed through hedge funds, pensions ISA's, investment funds etc, it's sill your and my savings in use here.
These are the potential losers, unless we have the mindset to not invest in the UK economy at the moment. Which I have, whether rightly or wrongly we shall see.
All very true but... I find it totally reprehensible that TW has spunked billions into the pockets of shareholders at a time when they really should be investing those billions into repairing the 1000s of miles of leaky piping and the issues they have which seem to require an awful lot of untreated sewage being pumped into rivers, lakes and sea by the various water companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone
IMO 100% immoral they are
Oh dear oh dear. Even the dumb Tories fell into the mass migration is good trap. No matter how much anyone defends it. GDP has hardly risen , yet GDP per capita has gone into free fall.
Makes for interesting reading, when you don't grade who you let in.
https://cps.org.uk/media/post/2024/m...ck-and-obrien/
Actually that report does contain a lot of sense. It's not about abolition of migration, it's about control and quality. The argument that migration enhances GDP is fallacious it is GDP per capital that matters.
This may not appeal to the soft left humanists here, but economically you cannot justify importing people who are not net GDP per capital effective/enhancing
I tried to explain GDPPC and the impact of non producers on it to one of these soft left humanists on here a few years ago and must admit I gave up as said person didn’t understand my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone
Yes that report makes sense. That’s you and I both off Swale’s Christmas card list (although I doubt he has one actually)
That is the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_Faber
Its quality of life.
A few get very rich of cheap labour, but the waste that comes with it effects the poorest of all of us.
Wage suppression/services/health/housing.
another one bites the dust because of it.
Robert Jenrick
@RobertJenrick
·
1h
I resigned from government because I refused to be another politician who broke their promise to reduce immigration.
Three decades of mass migration have utterly failed the British public.
The costs have been covered up.
Here is the truth that needs to be told��