Britain is upping the amount of cash it pays France to deter migrants from crossing the Channel – but Britons are split on the principle of paying France to prevent small boat crossingsAll Britons: 39% support / 42% opposeCon voters: 43% / 48%https://t.co/wW1j0OPY7F pic.twitter.com/1tHZJ4xDZf
Do you approve of such a prejudice ?
1) A CEO friend and I stopped by SVB’s Palo Alto office today just in time to see an FDIC employee taping a QR code to the door that led to a FAQ:
The $250k of deposit insurance will be available Monday, and it sounds as though assets are being fairly rapidly liquidated.
Bottom line might be a 30% haircut for depositors.
They can thank Trump's rollback of banking regulation for that.
Given SVB was considerably more exposed than any other bank, systemic risk looks quite low.
The unrealised losses in banks' HTM bonds might mean some big hits to profits in less well capitalised banks which see significant withdrawals (eg US regional banks).
On the polling, the Ipsos-UK poll was very encouraging for Rishi on his GE2019 voters (don't forget all these announcements and moves will have been focus grouped first) and the objective is to shift DKs into the Tory camp and get his polling up from 23-25% to 30%+ by rallying his base:
I'm not sure how much it means, though. Far more significant to the popularity of the policy will be the numbers crossing this year.
...and that is the real fear...given the velocity of money we just saw...with no action Monday morning, a solvent bank can go to, and then the game is really up and mass hysteria sets in.
It is counterintuitively a good thing for bank confidence for $SIVB to have blown up through an obvious mistake. If we lose something solvent through a liquidity squeeze...oh boy. Note, that in the event a solvent bank has a liquidity failure the depositors, by definition, would be held whole, it would just be annoying...
In 2008 if you had your money at a regional, you could rationalize that it was safer than a big bank (no subprime, derivs, etc). Here, EVERYONE knows that the big banks are 100% safe and questions whether theirs is. We need a circuit breaker and a pretty big one. ..
The problem is enforcement, and this government has been much more willing to play to the gallery, than to actually enforce their new laws.
It's worth remembering once again that support for the concept of asylum in theory amongst the electorate is high (hence the fact that there is little if any grumbling about letting in lots of Ukrainians and Hongkongers,) but support for the boat people in practice is not, and for good reason. The overwhelming majority of them are young men, most of those are demonstrably economic migrants (starting with the whole of the 42% of all the boat people whom, according to the most recent available figures, were Albanian,) and they're a security risk.
Nearly a quarter of all depositors' money was withdrawn on Thursday/Friday.
It does serve as a warning of how quickly banks can fail now - a matter of a day or two, rather than weeks.
Stress tests for banks with capital below $250bn, abolished by Trump, need to come back.
From what I'm seeing the vast majority don't put refugees on boats very high on their list of concerns. So all it does is make Tory Ultras- who do -look weirder than usual.
Rishi hasn't been a terrible PM. Much better than both his predecessors but all through his premiership he's been fighting a rearguard action trying to mitigate the damage his poisonous Home Secretary causes every time she's let out of her cage. Boris had J R-M and Mad Nad but he at least looked in control of them. Rishi looks spooked.
Hopefully this will be a lesson to all Govts, right and left, to not interfere in free speech.
He absolutely has to go.
The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC
He wasn't suspended
You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?
Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.
But the two incidence are not equivalent.
Sample size: 1,037
Fieldwork: 8-10 March
SNP 40% (-3)
Lab 32% (+2)
Con 18% (+1)
LD 6% (nc)
Grn 2% (+2)
Alba 1% (+1)
Baxtered (new boundaries):
SNP 37 seats (-11)
Lab 13 seats (+12)
Con 5 seats (-1)
LD 2 seats (nc)
In that Young Enterprise group in Croydon in 1983/1984, it was clear we were very different people with different views and different priorities. I don't think he liked me at all! But I respected him. Even then he was clear, determined and great at getting things done. It's come as no surprise he's had a stellar career since.
Should he go? At this point, I don't think so. Someone's got to sort out this mess (a lot of which was not his fault). I think he's capable of doing so.
Decades back, it had a world-leading brand. If the BBC management had not been so backward looking, happy in their comfy licence fee poll tax, they might have actually seen the change coming at them, hard and fast.
BBC management has been woeful, from at least the risible John Birt onwards.
Andrew Neil was allowed, for years, to attack Scottish independence & the SNP on his Twitter feed. Complaints were met with silence.
He epitomised the old saying about accountants knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.
F1: heard some radio snippets the other day from Red Bull, essentially having both drivers put in slower lap times because there was no need to go full tilt. They were still, both, over a pit stop ahead of Alonso, in third.
I note that BBC News immediately asked him for an interview.
New Scottish Independence poll, Find Out Now 1 - 9 Mar (changes vs 11 - 18 Jan):
Yes ~ 50% (-2)
No ~ 46% (+2)
Don't Know ~ 4% (+1)
Excluding Don't Knows (/ vs 2014):
Yes ~ 52% (-2 / +7)
No ~ 48% (+2 / -7)
Davie doesn't even have that, which is may be why he has messed up the manager/talent relationship so much.
And whilst the license fee is absurd and may not work for much longer, nobody has come up with a better way of funding public service broadcasting.
He is doing things that are popular and unpopular at the same time in order to get things done.
Simultaneously he is both pleasing and annoying specific voting groups, IE the pre-europeans and the Faragists.
For example it’s notable that when pollsters ask respondents who would make the best PM, Sunak or Starmer, the DK figure is always higher in Scotland. A large percentage obviously want to say “Neither” but are not presented with that option.
It is a channel that pumps out generic drama, soaps, panel shows and competes for sports rights or not ? I’d say no.
Is it the network of local radio stations ? Possibly.
Is it national radio,stations that compete with commercial rivals. Again I’d say no.
Rolling 24 hour news. Maybe
BBC Three innit. Nope
World service. Yes
I think the Public service element needs to be defined and funded and the commercial side of the BBC just spun off and competes for,it’s funding with other broadcasters.
And the most important time to defend free speech is when you don't like what is being said.
Honestly some people here from the socially conservative right seem to have more in common with the old USSR or Putin's Russia in their views on censorship.
Which means we are going to be opened up to an awful lot of coverage about just how - and why - the Conservative Party is so desperate to corrupt the BBC. And what kind of threat a tweeting sports presenter really would have been to a policy which as claimed was robust and popular.
As soon as Sunak said "he's great isn't he? Nothing to do with the government" it was clear the Tories had conceded and were in retreat. What a fiasco.
He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
Regardless of which party or parties you intend to vote for in future elections, which of the three candidates do you think would be the best First Minister of Scotland? (Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase, 7th-10th March 2023)
Kate Forbes: 33% (+10)
Humza Yousaf: 18% (+3)
Ash Regan: 10% (+3)
Don't Know: 36% (-13)
If the remaining Don't Knows are stripped out, this is how the state of play looks -
Kate Forbes: 53% (+5)
Humza Yousaf: 30% (-)
Ash Regan: 17% (+3)
Aiui something like 400 startups used SVB UK, around half solely. A further 100 or so used SVB US and might genuinely be underwater on Monday with only a $250k payout and a 30-40% haircut on the rest. Hopefully not too many companies fail and can raise more money from investors or the US government steps in and covers the losses.
It's indeed true that Birt had experience of TV, like Greg Dyke. But the crtical fact is that he signed over , almost, the entire restructurng of the BBC to an outside body, in the shape of McKinsey's.
Nothing like that's happened to the BBC before, or since.
Davie is simply a continuation of this more commercial ethos, nothing new or particularly different, or necessarily that much more incompetent on the creative front than Dyke, who wasn't terrible. But he's shown poor judgement over this row and affair.
Conservative against by 48/43 indicates there are still those who do not want to pay any share to France
Labour against by 41/39 shows there are some pragmatists in Labour
Leave against 51/40 is the same as the conservatives
Lib Dems in favour 51/33 affirms their pro EU credentials
Remain in favour 43/37 same as Lib Dems
Maybe I am turning into a Lib Dem as I want a closer relationship with the EU and applaud Sunak's agreement on the WF and also on the new entente cordial including the sharing of the costs over three years with France
- no specific target for the cut
- no time period (so, fort instance, HYUFD could claim it was Mr Sunak rather than, say, bad weather)
- no consideration of it being *our* money
- logically, HYUFD thinks spending £550m (as agreed so far) is worth it if it reduces the total by one boat
- and, as always, always, whether it is good for the Tory Party, not the UK
The original Le Touquet deal was for extra policing in exchange for the UK accepting a proportion of asylum cases from France but it never really happened. On the other hand Macron unlike some other French politicians wants to keep the arrangement going. Maybe the money helps.
SNP Leadership Election Endorsements, state of play at 11pm on 11th of March. 3 candidates, 106 endorsements available.
Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)
Yousaf: 50 (32/18)
Forbes: 14 (11/3)
Regan: 1 (0/1)
None Yet: 37 (14/23)
None: 4 (4/0)
…Yousaf now has the backing of a majority of the possible MSPs; 32 of 61, which is 33 of 64 inclusive of the leadership candidates.
Interesting that MPs are being slower with their endorsements than MSPs.
And hopefully common sense will break out over BBC v Lineker
Ah, happy days!
(Arguably that decision was the springboard for a career that shaped politics a decade or so later).
Political interference in the BBC. Would never have happened in the halcyon days of non political appointees John Birt and Gavyn Davies.
Birt’s impact on the BBC was far more malign than any Tory.
Owning GBeebies and Talk TV and the Daily Mail isn't enough - you need to shut down sanity and reason hence appointing stooges to run the BBC. Where it has gone so spectacularly wrong is that the Tory stooges had to suspect Lineker because he wasn't impartial. Too big a leap even for people in this post-truth world...
They've made it instead about one of the country's most popular TV presenters criticising it for being Nazi like (yes, he did in effect say that) and being suspended as a result so live sport is either binned or going out without commentary.
Thereby guaranteeing his views gain maximum traction and the policy becomes wildly unpopular for reasons that are nothing to do with the uselessness of said policy.
I don't know what the Devil charged Starmer for his soul, but I'm still thinking he was swindled.
There may be some of the pearl clutching liberals calling for open borders he talks about, but they have no power and no means of securing power. So the juxtaposition he creates doesn’t actually exist in the real world.
The real world issue is will the government’s plan work? The answer is almost certainly no. What may work, as Matthew says, is detailed, sustained international cooperation. The one thing that is pretty much guaranteed not to get that is what the Tory right, including Suella Braverman, has made very clear it wants - the UK pulling out of the ECHR and/or the UNHCR. So Sunak will have a very important choice to make in a few months time when the small boats keep coming.
And, yes, as Syed says, language matters a lot. If you want a national consensus rather than dividing lines you don’t use words like invasion and accuse those who don’t agree with you of betraying Britain.
Tories are having a debate among themselves about whether they can somehow contrive to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat or are doomed to be chewed up and spat out by angry voters whenever the next election comes.
Senior Labour people are not arguing about whether we are reliving the run-up to ’97. That’s because none of them think they have a chance of replicating the 179-seat majority won by Tony Blair. Thanks to the dismal legacy of the last election, its worst result since 1935, Labour has a vast mountain to scale. It probably requires a swing of 12% to get over the line – a bigger shift than the 10% achieved by Mr Blair. Everyone of significance in today’s Labour hierarchy is haunted by the spectre of ’92.
There’s sense to having a direction-setting framework for a 10-year plan of renewal, but Labour MPs don’t pretend that “mission-driven government” cuts through with many voters. By the time of the election, they will need a fistful of crisp and credible offers that they can sell on doorsteps and in TV studios. It is not hard to find members of Labour’s high command who use the word “soft” to describe their party’s support. “The deal isn’t clinched,” says one of their number. “Not anywhere near clinched.”
The next election will not be an exact rerun of ’97 nor a rehash of ’92. History rarely repeats itself so neatly. But there are enduring lessons from both. Labour fails when its opponents have an opening to depict the party as unsafe with office. Labour succeeds when it has persuaded the country that it can be trusted with government and that it has compelling ideas to use power to make Britain a better country. Not one or the other, but both
The Chair and the DG need to go
It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
“Duke of Edinburgh”? OMFG.
Nomia Iqbal: "Would Lineker have been removed if he supported government's policy? If he'd replied to Suella Braverman to say 'I support your migrant policy, I back it, it's brilliant', he would be taking an opinion. Would you have removed him for that?"
Tim Davie: "I'm not going to go through all the hypotheticals of the past"
A group of rich non-taxpayers who have a high opinion of themselves aren't natural sympathy-gatherers. One thing the BBC has managed is to avoid too much obvious bias despite their natural lefty tendencies. If Lineker forces this to be different, why are we paying for them?
Wife beaters deserve a knighthood? Vote Conservative.