Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

According to an updated report in today's The Guardian online, Boris's various vanity projects as Mayor of London have so far cost the taxpayer £970M.

However, if we build a bridge to France we can then recreate the future fantasy empire of the Hawkmoon series by Michael Moorcock.

La Manche is, IIRC, the or at least one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world right ?


Sure it'd be a piece of piss to whack a 20 odd mile concrete bridge over that.




Perhaps we could use it to fill those water cannons Bojo also bought , you remember'em : the ones we don't/can't use.


OH yeah, no EU bank passporting either unless we chip in to the EU budget and follow the rules.

.. what a shocker eh ?!

Thought we sold on those water cannon?

If I ran this country, the water cannon would be rolled out for special occasions like royal weddings, and filled with beer!

I'd fill them full of concrete and seal up No 10 with the Tory Cabinet inside.

.. moving on..

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexspence/britain-is-cutting-diplomats-in-asia-africa-and-the?utm_term=.on6Qq2ePbw#.wfrEl0Z19e

Britain Is Cutting Diplomats In Asia, Africa And The Americas To Put More In The EU Ahead Of Brexit

It is a natural progression of the insanity.

We need to staff up in Europe because it's our biggest international engagement and is going to become a lot more difficult after Brexit so will need more staff.

Without recruiting and training a lot more people -- difficult in times of austerity -- we have to pull them out of other areas.

Which of course will decrease our engagement with these other areas.

 reds8n wrote:


.. moving on..

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexspence/britain-is-cutting-diplomats-in-asia-africa-and-the?utm_term=.on6Qq2ePbw#.wfrEl0Z19e

Britain Is Cutting Diplomats In Asia, Africa And The Americas To Put More In The EU Ahead Of Brexit

Damn them! They're ruining my vision of Britain pivoting towards Asia!!

Shakes fist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
According to an updated report in today's The Guardian online, Boris's various vanity projects as Mayor of London have so far cost the taxpayer £970M.

However, if we build a bridge to France we can then recreate the future fantasy empire of the Hawkmoon series by Michael Moorcock.

Bloody good series that. Would recommend it to anybody.

Have an exalt.

 reds8n wrote:
La Manche is, IIRC, the or at least one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world right ?


Sure it'd be a piece of piss to whack a 20 odd mile concrete bridge over that.

One suggestion is to have a couple of artificial islands in the Channel, at the outer edges of the shipping lanes. Run bridges from the coasts to the islands, then a tunnel in between. Rather like the Oresund crossing between Denmark and Sweden. It has also been suggested that by the time any such crossing is built, advances in automation will mean that automated ships will be less likely to crash into it. In any case, I don't think the USN passes through the Channel that often, so we should be OK.

With the number of dead cats this government keep throwing about, why has no one called the RSPCA?

 Ketara wrote:
What the feth is it with Boris and bridges? Be it building them or burning them, it's all he ever does!

Perhaps he just wants to build them so he can burn them. Keeping things in a nice neat circle.

There's more evidence that from Macron's visit that if the UK wants to keep service trade deals then it is going to have to keep freedom of movement, ECJ and so on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42757026

Mr Macron said access to the EU for the UK's financial services sector was "not feasible" if the UK did not accept the obligations of the single market.
But he insisted he did not want to "unplug" the City from the EU, adding: "It doesn't make sense, because it's part of the whole financing of our European Union."
He told Marr it was not too late for the UK to change its mind about remaining - describing the 2016 referendum as a "mistake".
"I do respect this vote, I do regret this vote, and I would love to welcome you again," he said.
"It's a mistake when you just ask 'yes' or 'no' when you don't ask people how to improve the situation and explain how to improve it."

So, pensions. Is it just me or is part of the answer blindingly simple; you are not allowed a government contract if you have a pension scheme in deficit? Any companies with existing contracts who have deficits have to put in place an action plan to resolve the issue in a reasonable time (say 3-5 years).

You shouldn't be doing any contracts if the pension is in deficit.


Heck. It should just be made illegal. Outright.

Those eejits are still coming at me with demands for money. Only problem (for them) is, I think they've both blinked and misled on their latest letter. On the last one they said that if I didn't pay up they'd recommend to their client that they take court action. Well, I still haven't paid up and they're still pushing that line. This is my last chance apparently...even though the last letter was also my last chance.

They also said that that if they go to court and they win, they can ask the court to make me pay the court costs and solicitors fees. It was my understanding that the court wouldn't do that. The fine and court costs only and nothing else, if even that.

My regret is ripping up the first letters they sent me. The ones that came directly from the parking company itself, with the photos of my car (were you couldn't see my face). I probably shouldn't have done that.

Steering this back to British politics, is it possible to change the law to knock this kind of nonsense on the head?

 welshhoppo wrote:
You shouldn't be doing any contracts if the pension is in deficit.


Heck. It should just be made illegal. Outright.

Do you mean pension deficits in general? Either way I agree.

There are legitimate reasons why a company's pension scheme can get into deficit. One way to address it might be actually to get a good government contract.

The problem with Carillion, and BHS before them, was that the directors were being paid massive salaries and bonuses, and handing out large dividends to shareholders, while the pensions funds went into deficit.

It is impossible to see this behaviour as anything else functionally than the managers and owners diverting money from the staff to themselves..

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Those eejits are still coming at me with demands for money. Only problem (for them) is, I think they've both blinked and misled on their latest letter. On the last one they said that if I didn't pay up they'd recommend to their client that they take court action. Well, I still haven't paid up and they're still pushing that line. This is my last chance apparently...even though the last letter was also my last chance.

They also said that that if they go to court and they win, they can ask the court to make me pay the court costs and solicitors fees. It was my understanding that the court wouldn't do that. The fine and court costs only and nothing else, if even that.

Thats because they literally can't do anything else. They can only bend the truth to scare you into paying; they don't get paid if it goes to court.
At small claims solicitors costs are capped at £50.
They'll give you a full copy of the letters if it does go to court but it's unlikely

I did mean the pension deficit.


It's not a bank fund, you shouldn't use other people's savings to fund yourself.

Especially as I doubt we'll have public pensions for that much longer, given the massive costs involved.

As for the car parking thing, did they actually send the notice to owner in the required window of time? Or did they miss it?

 welshhoppo wrote:
I did mean the pension deficit.


It's not a bank fund, you shouldn't use other people's savings to fund yourself.

Especially as I doubt we'll have public pensions for that much longer, given the massive costs involved.

As for the car parking thing, did they actually send the notice to owner in the required window of time? Or did they miss it?

I completely agree. Remember what happened with BHS? It sickens me that pension funds are open to be gouged by the sociopath corporate raiders put in charge of companies these days.

And with the parking issue, all that happened was I received a letter from them about a week after the fact demanding money. I ignored it (and ripped up the letter). About a month latter I received a letter from 'Dept Recovery Plus' demanding money within 2 weeks or they'll advise their clients to take court action. And now here we are again, them demanding money by the 31st or they'll advise their clients to take court action.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I did mean the pension deficit.


It's not a bank fund, you shouldn't use other people's savings to fund yourself.

Especially as I doubt we'll have public pensions for that much longer, given the massive costs involved.

As for the car parking thing, did they actually send the notice to owner in the required window of time? Or did they miss it?

I completely agree. Remember what happened with BHS? It sickens me that pension funds are open to be gouged by the sociopath corporate raiders put in charge of companies these days.

And with the parking issue, all that happened was I received a letter from them about a week after the fact demanding money. I ignored it (and ripped up the letter). About a month latter I received a letter from 'Dept Recovery Plus' demanding money within 2 weeks or they'll advise their clients to take court action. And now here we are again, them demanding money by the 31st or they'll advise their clients to take court action.

I know exactly what happened with BHS because I worked there and was made redundant a few years prior to the collapse. I still had friends working there when the whole company went under, luckily my mother left the company a few months before.

Well, unless they have sent a 'notice to owner' then do nothing.

Actually, its best to call the British Parking Association first and ask them if the company thats nagging you are a member. If they aren't then they probably accessed your DVLA records illegally.

These pension issues are nothing new. Heck, they used to be far worse. I remember hearing about one case back in the late 80's where the pension funds were used to invest into another company owned by the directors which gambled on the stock market and lost the lot.

Pension issues are a big problem for a company, but they tend only to happen when management itself goes bad. A good company can take a quick dip into them to pay for something badly needed to keep the company afloat and then replenish them later with no-one the wiser or worse off when necessary. It's when you have a rotten management structure that takes and never gives that it all goes wrong.

Robert Maxwell and the Mirror pension fund?

 Ketara wrote:
These pension issues are nothing new. Heck, they used to be far worse. I remember hearing about one case back in the late 80's where the pension funds were used to invest into another company owned by the directors which gambled on the stock market and lost the lot.

Pension issues are a big problem for a company, but they tend only to happen when management itself goes bad. A good company can take a quick dip into them to pay for something badly needed to keep the company afloat and then replenish them later with no-one the wiser or worse off when necessary. It's when you have a rotten management structure that takes and never gives that it all goes wrong.

And that is the thinking that starts the issue. “We just need the money short term. We will pay it off soon when we get through the bad patch”. But the bad patch never ends. That’s what banks are for. Pensions should be untouchable. That’s not the company’s money, it’s the employees. Same as companies that use money from the VAT account or taking out a payday loan. All companies that take pension money and use it as working capital think they are going to be ok. If they didn’t then the directors are committing a criminal act, not in taking the pension money, but in running a company that is not solvent.

At last - some truth from the EU elite.

Macron admits that France would probably have voted to leave the EU had there been a referendum in France.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-42768466/president-macron-on-trump-brexit-and-frexit

It's the truth that dare not speak its name: that the EU elite don't want other countries having referendums, because they know your average European will run the EU out of town.

In further good news, Remain supporter says global growth will help post-Brexit Britain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

Looking good for Brexit so far, and the wheels seem to be coming off the EU bandwagon.

No. Global Growth would be good for us in or out of Europe. I think the word you're looking for is 'mitigate'.

Or do you just read as far as you need to still think Brexit is a great idea?

In other news, I see UKIP continue to consume themselves.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. Global Growth would be good for us in or out of Europe. I think the word you're looking for is 'mitigate'.

Or do you just read as far as you need to still think Brexit is a great idea?

In other news, I see UKIP continue to consume themselves.

In the short term, it's welcome news, mitigation or not, but as you know, I've always said we need at least 10 years of hard data before we make a judgement on Brexit.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At last - some truth from the EU elite. Macron admits that France would probably have voted to leave the EU had there been a referendum in France.

probably. He also said he'd campaign against it, that he's not willing to harm EU values in a Brexit deal, and if we want financial access we'll have to pay in, as we've already been told.

So now the heads of the 2 remaining powerhouses in the EU have told us the same thing.

Or are you just skimming for the points that aren't anti-brexit?

There was an article I read this morning about the head of a business organisation pressing May to get some urgency behind her about business relationships, as businesses can only hold off triggering "plan B" for another 6 months or so. I'm struggling to find it now (I may have read it on facebook about 4am).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Farage is also threatening to rejoin politics in a new pro-Brexit party, if UKIP voted no confidence in current leadership.

I'm hoping he does, and that it flops horribly, so that we're finally rid of the rat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

In the short term, it's welcome news, mitigation or not,

But it's irrelevant to Brexit - the growth would happen anyway.

but as you know, I've always said we need at least 10 years of hard data before we make a judgement on Brexit.

And not many people agree with you. You've never told us what your criteria for a successful Brexit is though - what will it take for you to admit it was a failure?
Or will you just pull the "It was done 10 years ago, get over it" line?

There are various points about the current status of world economic growth.

1. National economies -- depressed for nearly 10 years -- eventually start to correct themselves and return to growth. (In the even longer term, there will be another boom followed by another bust. This is called regression to the mean.)

2. Fortunately, the three major economies of the EU, the USA, and China, have all returned to growth simultaneously, a very virtuous circle.

3. This benefits the UK too, under the principle that a rising tide lifts all the boats. (In other words, as these other economies grow, they want to buy more UK goods and services.)

4. This effect is independent of Brexit, however. Brexit is expected to reduce the UK’s economy by 3% over the next 12 years. This means if the UK stayed within the EU and enjoyed say 20% economic growth in 12 years, instead it will enjoy 17%. (Figures made up to illustrate the principle.)

5. The UK’s national economy still is lagging behind everyone else’s. This is due to deep-seated problems of low investment in education, infrastructure and so on, which also are independent of Brexit.

6. For Brexit to be an economic success, the reduction in EU trade must be more than matched by growth in other trade.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
UKIP leader Henry Bolton hit by multiple resignations

Difficult to see how he can hang on much longer.

This may be the final nose dive of the party. They will have lost 5 leaders in 18 months, they are deeply in debt, and they don't have any significant voter support in the post-referendum political landscape.

If Farage returns to politics, he should start a new party called Nukip.

@ Herzlos.

If one of the EU's staunchest supporters is saying that his nation would probably vote to leave the EU, then you know that there's trouble in paradise.

It's been clear to me for a long time that politicians want the EU to go one way, and the average man on the street wants it to go another way entirely. Only one of these positions can win, because compromise will only take you so far. Sooner or later the EU will have to answer a very important question: do we want political union to match the fiscal union of the Euro?

@Kilkrazy. 2018 was always going to be the crunch year for Brexit talks, but if the UK economy is doing well, then it's easier for May to sell Brexit to the public, and harder for Remain supporters to preach doom and gloom about it.

The UK economy isn't doing well, it's just not doing as badly as expected, thanks to the rest of the EU doing better than expected (where 44% of our exports go, thanks to the single market, remember...)

There was another similar report last week, which said the stock market had gone up more than expected, after absorbing the news that a Hard Brexit now seemed less likely than a Soft Brexit.

These are not signs that Brexit is a good thing for the economy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However, it doesn't matter. For most people, the whole Brexit issue is bound up with emotional issues, and they are not interested in the economy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ Herzlos.

If one of the EU's staunchest supporters is saying that his nation would probably vote to leave the EU, then you know that there's trouble in paradise.

It's been clear to me for a long time that politicians want the EU to go one way, and the average man on the street wants it to go another way entirely. Only one of these positions can win, because compromise will only take you so far. Sooner or later the EU will have to answer a very important question: do we want political union to match the fiscal union of the Euro?

Put the 'average joe' (and increasing numbers) under financial hardship where they are getting poorer to the wealthiest and they tend to lash out at the institution of the day. Add on growing 'fear' of other people coming into 'their' (which to point it is not) country then more hard right, conservative tendencies come to the fore which can then be reinforced by demagogues like Farage. There are global troubles and this potentially is only the start as the major powers react to increasingly extreme views rather than moderate them. That makes countries increasingly insular and suspicious of each other.

@Kilkrazy. 2018 was always going to be the crunch year for Brexit talks, but if the UK economy is doing well, then it's easier for May to sell Brexit to the public, and harder for Remain supporters to preach doom and gloom about it.

Which is exactly why the 'average joe' shouldn't make decisions on such issues and leave it to the professionals because this sort of vision is short sighted. Effectively what it states is that we are hanging off the coat tails of other countries as they grow. By default that means out growth is lower as we are dragged along (evidenced by being worst performing G8 country, stagnating wages). In effect the wealthy are benefiting from the chaos, the poorest are suffering. However long term then our economy declines relatively and that makes recessions, when they hit, even worse. It results in steady decline overtime. Poorer people are easier to exploit and the cycle continues. The instant doom was always excessive as it takes time to turn a large ship and variations occur more gradually. There's already plenty of evidence that advanced tech businesses are starting to invest elsewhere, the impacts of these will take years to feed through though. We may be alright making cheese but that leaves us with a relatively poor agricultural economy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


There was another similar report last week, which said the stock market had gone up more than expected, after absorbing the news that a Hard Brexit now seemed less likely than a Soft Brexit.

That was largely tied into the "idiot who shall not be named" tax changes that benefited the rich and punished the poor. It's not a surprise that those markets were improved by such a move