c4countdown

Noel Mc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:28 pm It's laughable really, isn't it?

Any money on Sunak being the leaker of the video?

Since that post won't age well, this is the story being referred to. But anyway, could be Sunak after the top job. I've no idea really.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:36 pm

Noel Mc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:28 pm It's laughable really, isn't it?

Any money on Sunak being the leaker of the video?

Since that post won't age well, this is the story being referred to. But anyway, could be Sunak after the top job. I've no idea really.

Oh sorry, yep, context is useful!

Will anything come of it?

Noel Mc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:42 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:36 pm

Noel Mc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:28 pm It's laughable really, isn't it?

Any money on Sunak being the leaker of the video?

Since that post won't age well, this is the story being referred to. But anyway, could be Sunak after the top job. I've no idea really.

Oh sorry, yep, context is useful!

Will anything come of it?

I doubt it will. This is Boris Johnson's government. They can get away with anything.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:53 pm

Noel Mc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:42 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:36 pm
Since that post won't age well, this is the story being referred to. But anyway, could be Sunak after the top job. I've no idea really.

Oh sorry, yep, context is useful!

Will anything come of it?

I doubt it will. This is Boris Johnson's government. They can get away with anything.

It does feel like that.

Good to see my employer voted against the illiberal and authoritarian Covid passes tonight.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 9:28 pm Good to see my employer voted against the illiberal and authoritarian Covid passes tonight.

What are your main concerns with it?

Tories got chucked out in the by-election, since it hasn't been mentioned.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:07 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 9:28 pm Good to see my employer voted against the illiberal and authoritarian Covid passes tonight.

What are your main concerns with it?

1 - they don't work. Delta and Omicron have a high vaccine escape, and as Boris said on Sunday that means two doses doesn't work any more. So a vaccine pass means you can be spreading Covid around willy-nilly. The alternative is "third doses only", but that's discriminatory to those who have not had the opportunity to have it.

2 - if you went to LFTs only, these are not 100% either, so for much the same reason.

3 - there are so many edge cases and medical exemptions that you will never get universal coverage.

4 - those who don't want a vaccine should not be treated as second-class citizens.

The staggered leaking of photos and videos is hilarious, as it is clearly a power move (probably by Rishi Sunak).
Doesn't pardon the fact Johnson is just an absolute tube though.

Noel Mc wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 9:56 pm The staggered leaking of photos and videos is hilarious, as it is clearly a power move (probably by Rishi Sunak).
Doesn't pardon the fact Johnson is just an absolute tube though.

What annoys me most about this is not the pictures themselves (I knew Boris Johnson was an utterly reprehensibly individual with no integrity at all so I didn't for one second believe he would have been making a concerted effort to follow his own rules when he was with his chums and there were no cameras), it's that whoever is responsible for these leaks (Sunak is a good shout, could also be perhaps Truss or Javid) is going to try and come out of it smelling of roses - "I wasn't at the gathering", "I wasn't at the Christmas party" etc. These photos could have been released MUCH sooner if they were trying to expose Johnson in the name of some sort of moral good - by sitting on them for this long, they are very much complicit and are proving that they only care about exposing wrongdoings when there's an opportunity for them to gain as a result. The spin that will be put on it, and that a great many people will likely buy in to, is that this person is "one of us" - they're extremely far from it.

What is costing Johnson at least as much as the fact he was clearly complicit in illegal gatherings, is that he's got no accountability when presented with irrefutable evidence that they went ahead. A lot of people made huge sacrifices amidst this (okay, I don't think anyone on here can honestly claim they followed every rule to the letter, but what Johnson was complicit in is likely orders of magnitude greater than what the majority on here would have to fess up to) and when there's clear evidence that the government was not making the sacrifices they expected of others and then when approached about this, they're acting as though it isn't even an issue, it breeds an awful lot of distrust-fuelled anger.

Blimey, not a mention of recent events - show how jaded we've all become with Bojo and his cronies.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:09 pm Blimey, not a mention of recent events - show how jaded we've all become with Bojo and his cronies.

I was too busy getting pissed at my office meeting

Who's surprised?

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:09 pm Blimey, not a mention of recent events - show how jaded we've all become with Bojo and his cronies.

I must say I was quite surprised by this too - what he's done is so indefensible that perhaps people feel like there's really no debate to be had.

What really infuriates me is that whoever is leaking this (someone wanting to get the top job) has waited until now, long after these events occurred. There'll be an attempt to push "I'm one of you" to the public and this couldn't be further from the truth - it's all for self gain. They could have reported the stuff at the time if they were really concerned about the ethics of it - by waiting until now they are culpable as well.

I would say Cummins is behind a lot of this.
Hell hath no fury and all that

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:00 pm I would say Cummins is behind a lot of this.
Hell hath no fury and all that

He may well be behind some of it, but I think there's a definite push by someone to get the top job here.

When did TikTok become "acceptable"? When it was first getting big, there was a lot of controversy abut it being this scary Chinese product that the Chinese government were presumably using to spy on everyone. Now it's everywhere, and you get the BBC going on about these viral TikTok videos with no reference to what they used to say about it.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 3:17 pm When did TikTok become "acceptable"? When it was first getting big, there was a lot of controversy abut it being this scary Chinese product that the Chinese government were presumably using to spy on everyone. Now it's everywhere, and you get the BBC going on about these viral TikTok videos with no reference to what they used to say about it.

Probably around the time they were forced to spin off an American-based version of themselves.

Privatising Channel 4 would be very bad. That is all.

This government privatising it especially, smacks of a Banana Republic

Nadine Dorries.

Oh sorry - I thought this was the joke items thread.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 8:35 am Nadine Dorries.

Oh sorry - I thought this was the joke items thread.

She could be in multiple threads.
People you shouldn't trust being an obvious one

An idea rejected by writers of a satirical comedy (presumably anyway) for being too unrealistic has now become official government policy. I have to keep checking it's not April Fools' Day.

Just when you think they couldn't get any more c***ier

The whole refugee/asylum seeker situation is ridiculous anyway. It's insane that people are in a position where they feel the need to make a dangerous crossing from France to the UK when both are rich western countries that should know how to treat people properly.

Countries should simply work together on this and come to a mutual agreement. Anyone who is trying to reach somewhere should be able to make their claim in the first safe country they reach, but make their claim for where they want to go. Then an independent body (set up by the countries in the agreement) decides where to place them, based on their need and obviously also availability (not just they just happen to end up first). That way, they would be treated fairly wherever they go.

Or we have global communism and no borders.

Freedom of movement is not communism. Neither is socialism

Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 11:08 am Freedom of movement is not communism. Neither is socialism

Great. We should still have global communism and no borders.

I think it's pretty insane how Shell have made record profits.

Shell's profits were expected to be big.

The price of oil and gas, already high at the end of last year, surged higher after the Russian invasion of Ukraine threatened disruption and eventual boycotts of one of the world's biggest suppliers of energy.

This makes no sense to me at all. Presumably the price rise was to cover Shell's costs. Anything on top of that is just us being ripped off by the energy companies. Am I missing something? And why does the BBC article not address this?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 1:00 pm I think it's pretty insane how Shell have made record profits.

Shell's profits were expected to be big.

The price of oil and gas, already high at the end of last year, surged higher after the Russian invasion of Ukraine threatened disruption and eventual boycotts of one of the world's biggest suppliers of energy.

This makes no sense to me at all. Presumably the price rise was to cover Shell's costs. Anything on top of that is just us being ripped off by the energy companies. Am I missing something? And why does the BBC article not address this?

No you're not missing anything. Shell, BP and others are charging more because there is a shortage, so basically they can. Yes their costs have gone up, but they will charge what they can get. Capitalism innit.

The oil companies' behaviour really is disgraceful. More reason to stop investing In them wherever possible. Windfall tax would be good but still just a superficial response to the problem of oil company greed.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 1:14 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 1:00 pm I think it's pretty insane how Shell have made record profits.

Shell's profits were expected to be big.

The price of oil and gas, already high at the end of last year, surged higher after the Russian invasion of Ukraine threatened disruption and eventual boycotts of one of the world's biggest suppliers of energy.

This makes no sense to me at all. Presumably the price rise was to cover Shell's costs. Anything on top of that is just us being ripped off by the energy companies. Am I missing something? And why does the BBC article not address this?

No you're not missing anything. Shell, BP and others are charging more because there is a shortage, so basically they can. Yes their costs have gone up, but they will charge what they can get. Capitalism innit.

If anyone believes strongly that you should only sell something for a price based on what you paid for it, rather than its market value, please PM me if you are selling a house any time, particularly if you bought it for half a crown in the 1950s.

But where does the market value come from in this case?

Edit - Anyway there's no comparison between the cases. Companies aren't sitting on oil for decades and then selling it for one thing so it's not like such a big change in market conditions has happened. Also house selling is more symmetrical. The buyers and sellers are generally members of the public and the price sets itself in a more natural way. That's not the case here. You have the big energy companies just setting the price and we have no choice. So that's why I'm asking where the "market value" comes from. I asked if I was missing anything and it can't have been that obvious because the other posters didn't nail it. And you just posted a sarcastic comment.

This is also an argument for nationalisation of course.

I don't believe this to be sufficient to answer your question Gavin but here's my best attempt at explaining the article's assertion that "profits were expected to be big" because of price rises:

If the oil companies rise their prices in such a way as to maintain their profit margin as a percentage rather than gross profit, then their gross profits will rice as prices rise. E.g. if you normally buy something at £10 and sell it at £12, then when your purchase price increases to £15 you sell at £18 so you still make a 20% profit margin. But your gross profit just rose by 50%.

Thereby gross profits (which is what the article is referring to when it just says "profits") will rise as purchase prices rise.

The problem in this specific instance is the degree to which the profits are rising: "nearly triple" according to the article.

Edit: I originally made a suggestion here that, having since done some rough example calculations, I think is wrong. Maybe some of you mathsy types can help crunch the numbers but it looks to me like there's no way of getting a nearly 300% gross profit increase from only a 50 to 60% sales price increases without deliberately increasing the profit margin. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

So basically: it's understandable for the article to say that you expect gross profit increases from price increases, but you should expect proportionality unless some fuckery is afoot. And yeah, the article just glosses over the disproportionality. If Gavin's missing something I'm missing it too.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:20 am That's not the case here. You have the big energy companies just setting the price and we have no choice.

The oil companies don't set the price. The market does.

Back in 2020, at the start of lockdown, oil companies were losing money and were expected to suck it up. BP and Shell have just taken multibillion pound hits due to the war in Ukraine and are expected to suck it up.

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 8:36 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:20 am That's not the case here. You have the big energy companies just setting the price and we have no choice.

The oil companies don't set the price. The market does.

Back in 2020, at the start of lockdown, oil companies were losing money and were expected to suck it up. BP and Shell have just taken multibillion pound hits due to the war in Ukraine and are expected to suck it up.

As is evident by my tying myself in knots with the high-school-level maths I attempted with profit margins in my previous post, I'm not very well educated in economics but I'm having another "am I missing something?" moment here.

Sticking with Shell for the moment as they were the focus of the article Gavin shared with us: the article also referenced them losing billions because of the Ukraine situation but it also said they made (even more billions) profit. So I'm confused by what is meant by "losing" or "hits" in this context.

Put simply: are Shell billions of pounds better off or worse off since Putin invaded Ukraine? Compared to how much money they were actually making beforehand, not compared to some hypothetical scenario in which the invasion never happened.

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 8:36 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:20 am That's not the case here. You have the big energy companies just setting the price and we have no choice.

The oil companies don't set the price. The market does.

But as I was asking above, how does this work? You have a very limited number of big companies selling oil. It's not like individual people buying and selling houses to each other where the price will be decided in a more "natural" way. So the discussion hasn't progressed.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:33 am
But as I was asking above, how does this work? You have a very limited number of big companies selling oil. It's not like individual people buying and selling houses to each other where the price will be decided in a more "natural" way. So the discussion hasn't progressed.

As I understand it, oil prices, like all commodity prices, are determined by speculators and hedgers who are betting on price moves. OPEC can control the supply side of the supply/demand equation, but individual companies cannot. BP and Shell can't decide the spot price for oil anymore than Beaverbrooks can decide the spot price for gold.

Having said that, I do believe there is a case for a windfall tax on UK oil producing companies.

WE WON HARROW COUNCIL. WE GAINED A COUNCIL IN LONDON. (And the BBC haven’t really bothered to dwell on it, largely because they didn’t send any reporters here.)

(I lost. Narrowly. Which was better than we expected.)

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:17 pm WE WON HARROW COUNCIL. WE GAINED A COUNCIL IN LONDON. (And the BBC haven’t really bothered to dwell on it, largely because they didn’t send any reporters here.)

(I lost. Narrowly. Which was better than we expected.)

Well done. Sort of. I mean, I don't want the Tories in!

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 3:58 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:33 am
But as I was asking above, how does this work? You have a very limited number of big companies selling oil. It's not like individual people buying and selling houses to each other where the price will be decided in a more "natural" way. So the discussion hasn't progressed.

As I understand it, oil prices, like all commodity prices, are determined by speculators and hedgers who are betting on price moves. OPEC can control the supply side of the supply/demand equation, but individual companies cannot. BP and Shell can't decide the spot price for oil anymore than Beaverbrooks can decide the spot price for gold.

Having said that, I do believe there is a case for a windfall tax on UK oil producing companies.

OK, thanks. I did wonder if it might be something like that. Still, the BBC article could have done a better job explaining it in the first place.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:17 pm (And the BBC haven’t really bothered to dwell on it, largely because they didn’t send any reporters here.)

Is that the reason? Or is it largely because the gain of a single council is quite an insignificant story compared to the massive losses suffered overall?

Well done Rhys.

A guy I went to school with and knew quite well stood in my ward and won. He also just got appointed Mayor of my town!

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 8:18 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:17 pm (And the BBC haven’t really bothered to dwell on it, largely because they didn’t send any reporters here.)

Is that the reason? Or is it largely because the gain of a single council is quite an insignificant story compared to the massive losses suffered overall?

Being a London council, if we (and Croydon) had counted overnight rather than during Friday day, we might arguably have changed the whole narrative: the Tories lost three councils in London and gained one/two (Croydon looking likely).

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 3:58 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:33 am
But as I was asking above, how does this work? You have a very limited number of big companies selling oil. It's not like individual people buying and selling houses to each other where the price will be decided in a more "natural" way. So the discussion hasn't progressed.

As I understand it, oil prices, like all commodity prices, are determined by speculators and hedgers who are betting on price moves. OPEC can control the supply side of the supply/demand equation, but individual companies cannot. BP and Shell can't decide the spot price for oil anymore than Beaverbrooks can decide the spot price for gold.

Having said that, I do believe there is a case for a windfall tax on UK oil producing companies.

So the argument against a windfall tax appears to be that it would affect the smaller players and discourage competition.....at the same time that Ofgem have made changes that effectively make switching suppliers impossible.

https://twitter.com/MartinSLewis/status ... 6399017985

I'm no economist, but this all seems bonkers. Does anyone get this?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:13 pm

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 3:58 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 9:33 am
But as I was asking above, how does this work? You have a very limited number of big companies selling oil. It's not like individual people buying and selling houses to each other where the price will be decided in a more "natural" way. So the discussion hasn't progressed.

As I understand it, oil prices, like all commodity prices, are determined by speculators and hedgers who are betting on price moves. OPEC can control the supply side of the supply/demand equation, but individual companies cannot. BP and Shell can't decide the spot price for oil anymore than Beaverbrooks can decide the spot price for gold.

Having said that, I do believe there is a case for a windfall tax on UK oil producing companies.

OK, thanks. I did wonder if it might be something like that. Still, the BBC article could have done a better job explaining it in the first place.

Thinking about this further, I'm not sure it would really work as a business model. If energy companies are just blindly buying and selling at the market rate, what happens if there is a fall in prices over any extended period of time? They just suck up the loss and sell to the public at the going rate?

People/companies attempt to make money buying and selling shares etc. by e.g. trying to buy when prices are down and selling when they're up. So they can hold without selling for as long as they want. But companies sellings goods to the public are in a completely different position. People need these goods at a relatively constant rate so the companies can't just hold without selling, and companies in general set the prices accordingly. Obviously they can't just make anything up because other companies can sell at a lower price, but the point is that Tesco selling a pizza is not restricted by some market speculator sitting up all night at a computer in New York. So I'm not sure that a company would for energy prices either.

Anyway, James May questioned this on Have I Got News For You on Friday (well, not in that detail), but no answer came. It's just one of many things that the news assume everyone understands when almost no-one does.

Fucking hell Gev. Just read Marx. It's the contradiction of capitalism that was outlined over 100 years ago. "Business models" don't actually exist. You're trying to square a circle using a methodology that doesn't allow circles to be squared.

Also what is the point in there being a price cap if it just goes up with energy prices anyway?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 12:37 pm Also what is the point in there being a price cap if it just goes up with energy prices anyway?

The logic was that people that didn't change supplier over long periods were being screwed by annual increases being applied which were effectively loyalty penalties. A separate issue to the cost of the energy itself.

The Gray report is clear that Number 10’s staff clearly thought that as they were exempt from lockdown they were exempt from restrictions in total.

I’m not sure you can pin that on the PM, to be honest. I think that’s on Martin Reynolds and other Number 10 officials. They then created a culture, telling everyone (Boris included) it was OK, and that no rules were being broken.

So yeah, should Boris take the sword for this? I honestly don’t know.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:50 am The Gray report is clear that Number 10’s staff clearly thought that as they were exempt from lockdown they were exempt from restrictions in total.

I’m not sure you can pin that on the PM, to be honest. I think that’s on Martin Reynolds and other Number 10 officials. They then created a culture, telling everyone (Boris included) it was OK, and that no rules were being broken.

So yeah, should Boris take the sword for this? I honestly don’t know.

So what you're saying is that the leader of the country is so easily led that he can break his own rules without giving it any thought? Jeeeeez.

I wonder if you'd be so willing to defend similar scenarios with other lawbreakers:

"I'm sorry, I didn't realise the speed limit was 30 for everyone. My mate told me that I could do 60, as he didn't think the rules applied to us. I didn't think it'd cause a crash."
"I'm sorry, I didn't realise that taking out of the charity donation box was forbidden. My mate told me that we could help ourselves to it, as he didn't think the rules applied to us."
"I'm sorry, I didn't realise that stabbing the man was wrong. My mate told me that it was acceptable if the person deserved it, as he didn't think the rules applied to us."

Would you say that the lawbreaker wasn't culpable in these scenarios, and that their friend should take the blame? Or would you say that they shouldn't have been so careless and imbecilic to believe the bogus advice given to them?

If even Rhys isn't sure, then he definitely needs to go.

Rhys needs to go

When a clown moves into a palace he doesn't become king.
The Palace turns into a circus.
Turkish proverb.

There are rumours about that Carrie Johnson has run off with Zac Goldsmith, and maybe even that Zac is the father of her child (the most recent one presumably). This is mostly Twitter gossip.

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 7:51 am "I'm sorry, I didn't realise the speed limit was 30 for everyone. My mate told me that I could do 60, as he didn't think the rules applied to us. I didn't think it'd cause a crash."

Except this is more like a police car speeding without bloos and toos. It’s a case of mistakes being made.

What’s less unforgivable is Robert Peston pedalling fake news on Twitter and then NOT deleting it, even after admitting fault.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 10:27 am

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 7:51 am "I'm sorry, I didn't realise the speed limit was 30 for everyone. My mate told me that I could do 60, as he didn't think the rules applied to us. I didn't think it'd cause a crash."

Except this is more like a police car speeding without bloos and toos. It’s a case of mistakes being made.

What’s less unforgivable is Robert Peston pedalling fake news on Twitter and then NOT deleting it, even after admitting fault.

"mistakes being made"

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 10:27 am

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 7:51 am "I'm sorry, I didn't realise the speed limit was 30 for everyone. My mate told me that I could do 60, as he didn't think the rules applied to us. I didn't think it'd cause a crash."

Except this is more like a police car speeding without bloos and toos.

How is it? It's like you're suggesting it was OK to do, but they didn't put on the right party hats to validate it. It wasn't the right thing to do. They broke the law, and not because they forgot to do something which would have made it OK.

Mens rea is not an excuse here

This isn't really politics, but I think this thread is the best fit. You might be aware of a man being tasered by police who then died after falling into the River Thames. Look at this article from the BBC, which was written while he was still in a critical condition.

A man is in a critical condition after being Tasered by police and falling in the River Thames.
...
Officers challenged a man in his 40s before shooting him with a Taser. He then fell into the river.

The man is in a critical condition in hospital and an internal investigation has been launched by the Met Police.

A Met spokesman said shooting the man with a Taser "did not enable the officers to safely detain him" and he "subsequently entered the river".

Sounds pretty bad doesn't it? They tasered him by the river and he fell in! But further down the article:

Video shared online shows two officers confronting the man, who falls to the ground after the Taser is discharged.

He eventually gets up and runs to the side of the bridge, and is seen to pull himself over the edge before either officer can reach him.

So it had nothing to do with being tasered. I'd say that this article is pretty dishonest and irresponsible from the BBC. Rhys will be happy.