Member Info for asimpleinvestor

@JCEP Boring or not its accurate and a problem that needs to be overcome if defence reforms are to become a reality, as they can't be overcome without money.

@JCEP Your calculation contains a shortfall of approximately 75% (£44.2 billion); this is a matter of mathematical reality rather than semantics. Regarding the proposed reallocation:

Local government "wastage" is irrelevant to the defence budget. National defence is funded via the Consolidated Fund through Westminster; local councils have no statutory remit or budgetary mechanism to fund national security.

The majority of UK Treasury receipts are legally and structurally committed to health, social care, and welfare. These services constitute the primary "safety and security" for the domestic population.

Identifying £14.8 billion in potential annual savings does not address the remaining £44.2 billion required for the 2030 defence target. Without a specific financing mechanism such as tax increases, significant borrowing, or further departmental cuts the claim remains unfunded.

Dismissing the financing gap as "semantics" does not resolve the budgetary deficit required to meet the stated security objectives. Regarding the points on private sector management and the prioritisation of security:

The private sector comparison is fiscally asymmetrical. Private entities can cease loss-making operations or "fire" non-profitable clients. HM Government has a statutory "duty of care" and legal obligations to provide universal services (NHS, welfare, education) that cannot be liquidated for profit or managed under a pure private-sector P&L model.

While national defence is a core pillar of security, it cannot be isolated from human security. Data from the 2025 Spending Review confirms that the "safety" of the British people relies heavily on the £190 billion Health budget and £280 billion Welfare/Pensions budget. Redirecting these funds to defence would mathematically compromise the domestic security of millions who rely on these services for survival.

Suggesting that a £44.2 billion annual shortfall is "semantics" avoids the fundamental requirement of any strategic claim: a funding mechanism. To increase defence spending by this margin without identifying new revenue or specific cuts to health/welfare is functionally identical to the "mismanagement" you have criticised.

Highlighting a 75% funding gap is not "point scoring"; it is an evidence-based assessment of the viability of your proposal. In the private sector, any proposal with a 75% unfunded deficit would be rejected by the board as financially illiterate.

@dsaf The TR‑1 point is being mixed up with the admin process of issuing shares. They’re two separate things in UK regulation.

1. TR‑1 responsibility sits entirely with the shareholder

Under FCA DTR 5, the obligation to notify a holding is on the individual, not the PLC.

Whether CREST has updated or a certificate has been issued is irrelevant to the TR‑1 requirement.

2. Legal ownership does not depend on CREST or certificates

Once the shares are allotted and entered onto the company’s register of members, the holder legally owns them.

CREST is only a settlement system. The register is the legal record.

3. Voting rights depend solely on the register at the record date

For the AGM, whoever is on the register at 6:30 p.m. on 1 May 2026 is entitled to vote.

CREST delays or certificate delays do not affect this.

4. “He can’t vote because the PLC hasn’t finished the process” is speculation

If the RNS has been issued and the registrar updates the register (normally within 24–72 hours), the shares are valid for voting.

There’s no evidence of any “block”.

Everything in that notice is normal, compliant with the Companies Act, and consistent with how UK registrars handle voting eligibility.

@Cevodniya I think you have that backwards, as I can count.

@JCEP If these systemic inefficiencies you have identified were rectified, the cumulative annual "addressable" waste, money that could be redirected toward other obligations like the £59 billion defence target is outlined below:

Asylum Processing & ODA Realignment: £2.5 Billion

NHS Productivity Gains (Efficiency Value): £9 Billion

IT Modernisation & ESN Resolution: £1.8 Billion

Fraud Recovery & PPE Storage Cessation: £1.5 Billion

Total Potential Annual Yield: £14.8 Billion

While rectifying these areas provides a significant fiscal cushion of approximately £15 billion per year, it covers only about 25% of the projected £59 billion annual defence spending increase required by 2030. Therefore, while these measures reduce the deficit, they do not fully offset the obligation without further tax adjustments or deeper departmental cuts. Where do you anticipate the other £44.2 Billion per year to come from?

Mr. White is required to submit the TR-1 notification to both the FCA and the issuer simultaneously. For Main Market companies like Pennpetro, the FCA filing must be performed electronically via the Electronic Submission System (ESS); simply notifying the issuer is insufficient to meet DTR 5 requirements. Even if the issuer already holds the details particularly as they were instrumental in correcting the registration of the 6,000,000 shares the shareholder maintains an independent legal obligation to file. Market transparency relies on the shareholder formally reporting the threshold crossing to the regulator to create a verified audit trail independent of the company’s internal register.

Critically, this administrative requirement for the shareholder does not impede Pennpetro’s relisting process. The responsibility for the TR-1 lies with the individual, not the PLC. Having published the necessary financial reports and resolved the legacy shareholdings, the only remaining act of governance for Pennpetro is the formal application to the FCA to lift the suspension. One shareholder's paperwork delay does not freeze the company's ability to return to the market.

"It doesn't matter asi they chose to continue with them thereby adopting them when they could have shelved them they chose not to do so hence creating their own u-turn."

Hold on a minute, you were suggesting that shelving something is a U-turn, and now you’re saying that not shelving something is a U-turn. You need to decide which one it is, because right now your argument includes both and neither at the same time.

@JCEP In February 2025, the government committed to reaching the 2.5% of GDP defence spending target by April 2027 bring it forward by three years, as the previous administration set the date at 2030. During the recent spending review the increase was delayed for a year due to reduced tax revenues. For the 2024/25 financial year, UK defence spending was approximately 2.3% of GDP (£60.2 billion). This is projected to rise to 2.36% in 2025/26 following a £2.2 billion increase announced in the 2025 Spring Statement. The government has further committed to a "core" defence spending target of 3.5% of GDP by 2035, in line with updated NATO expectations. The question is how this will be paid for as that commitment will exceed revenues currently utilised never mind increased costs to 3.5% of GDP from the current 2.3%. Suggesting quote "we could stop pis*ing away money on useless causes" doesn't cut it. I want specifics and yes, its down to know-it-alls like me that the right questions are asked. Give me an example of 'useless causes' their costs and how they will equate to the £59 billion on top of the current £60 billion required to hit that target.

@Gray1, the Digital ID initiative was established via the Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework under the previous administration. Labour is currently formalising this through the Digital Information and Smart Data Bill. Administrative frameworks already in progress do not require explicit manifesto mentions to continue through a change of government.

Similarly, the Chagos Islands sovereignty negotiations were formally initiated in November 2022 under the Rishi Sunak administration. Because both the Digital ID legislation and the Chagos negotiations were inherited as active, ongoing government business, maintaining their trajectory is a matter of state continuity rather than a policy U-turn. Indeed, halting these established processes would have been the actual reversal.

Much like 8888, you seem to require a primer on basic governance. You appear to be under the impression that state business expires with an outgoing administration and remains in stasis until a new one is sworn in. In reality, the machinery of government remains constant; these were inherited obligations, not elective pivots.

"As for labour and U-turns yes other governments do them also but Labour are the current government and their U-turns will come under more scrutiny also they have created their own issues with the Chagos Islands, digital ids etc not even in their manifesto had they left them alone that would have been two u-turns less."

Digital IDs do not strictly require a manifesto commitment, as they are categorised as administrative infrastructure similar to other government digitisation projects. However, the 2024 Labour Manifesto did include broader commitments to "improving data sharing across government" and "modernising the constitution," which encompass these frameworks.

Both the Chagos Islands sovereignty negotiations and the Digital ID trust frameworks were initiated under the previous Conservative administration. The current government is following the established trajectory of civil service negotiations and existing legislative work. Therefore, continuing these inherited programmes does not meet the definition of a policy reversal; conversely, abandoning these ongoing processes would have constituted the very U-turn you are criticising.

@skier1 "Brussels (unelected) is once again superior to London (elected)"

I wasn't aware the House of Lords nor indeed the Civil Service was elected. When did this occur?

To be fair, @Gray1, nobody knew what the terms would be for leaving the EU, yet in 2016 everyone voted to leave. We can probably guess most of the terms for rejoining, as all member states have to follow them too, and we’d still have the same choice about accepting the euro. But when we chose to leave, we really didn’t have a clue about the terms.

@wilburylover Within the EU or outwith the EU it wouldn't change anything. Small companies within the EU aren't thriving themselves currently so why would you assume this or any other company within the UK would back under the EU umbrella? The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence until you cross the fence and find the same grass on both sides.

It’s a recurring trope, @Gray1, but necessity rarely waits for the thin-skinned. I simply mirror the medium of engagement. If his retort was a defensive lunge aimed at belittlement rather than adult discourse, it is merely a reflection of his own tactical limitations.

People frequently suffer a peculiar brand of cognitive dissonance when addressed in the exact dialect they use to provoke others. 8888’s hostility was entirely elective; he chose the tone, I merely perfected the delivery. He’s been served a dose of his own unremarkable medicine, and predictably, the vintage was too dry for his palate. No doubt he’ll return to the stage soon enough to ensure the cabaret remains as tedious as it is inevitable.

8888... You appear to be on the defensive now and having a tantrum in the style of Jesus Chr..., sorry Trump. I quite like cabaret so will keep you visible if its all the same. Thanks for the offer though 👍

No matter how promising an investment seems, it’s always wise to spread your eggs across multiple baskets rather than relying on just one. HEX makes up about 45% of my portfolio as my largest investment, but I still have 31 other investments covering the remaining 55%. While things are great today, no one can predict what the future holds.

@JCEP Where would the money come from to boost defence spending? Treasury receipts are falling, and taxes are already higher than at any point in recent history, so how do you propose raising funds to significantly increase the defence budget? Show how much is needed and where it could realistically come from but don’t say Welfare, since the majority of that goes toward state pensions, and it’s hard to imagine anyone suggesting pensioners should be left unable to pay their bills just so the MOD can have a new ship to sail or plane to fly or missile to shoot.

The UK's greatest adversary is its population who thinks government has a magic money tree.

Which direction do you expect when milestones aren't met and all that is seen is dilution.

8888...If you’re not aligned with any particular party, your post came across as equally pointless, simply criticising the current government for issues that apply to any administration. That’s just how governance works, it’s normal practice for a government to shift direction when policies become unpopular with voters or when they’re no longer in the country’s best interests. I can see why you don't understand the point of my post as criticising good governance seems odd and perhaps taking some time to learn how parliament functions and what good governance entails would be more worthwhile than pointing fingers at something you clearly don’t understand rather than just following the verbiage of the popular press whose mission is purely to profit off the back of populists such as yourself..