One thing I will say is that politicians frothing about illegal immigrants (or promising to control immigration generally) but doing nothing about it is never going to be beneficial.
And I'll suggest that what upsets some people about Sunak and Braverman is that they might actually DO something about illegal immigrants rather than only talk about them.
They might even deport illegal immigrants at the same rate that Barack Obama did.
I'm not upset about that, the first thing I said was that this policy won't work.
Are you seriously suggesting anyone actually wants people crossing the sea and drowning?
So Sunak sought to polarise and divide us by dog whistling about immigration. And whilst it did not play out as he expected, he certainly succeeded. The sooner we get rid of this nasty bunch the better.
Isn't you using "dog whistling" dehumanising the people that will respond how Sunak wants?
I don’t think so, nice try though . It’s a pretty common phrase in politics to describe creating signals for your core vote.
To be ugly I guess it would mean that you thought the actually pretty ugly if you think about it.
Really? The concept of a “dog whistle” is about communicating with your chosen target, whilst others are oblivious. Nothing ugly about that. All parties do it. Oh well.
I guess you’re thinking about dogs and are not a lover of man’s best friend. Loyal faithful companions and very clever.
The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.
The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.
US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.
The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.
As @MaxPB and others have pointed out these companies are an important part of our future and anyone who is not concerned about their continued growth and progress is an economic illiterate. Thankfully the days of Fuck business seem well behind us.
How on earth do you work that one out? What is a massive corporation tax hike and removing investment allowances if it's not 'fuck business'?
The only thing that I am aware of that is being taken away is the superdeduction of 130% of capital costs for qualifying investment that is currently due to expire at the end of this month. I will be astonished if the budget this week does not continue this or an equivalent benefit going forward. We absolutely need to boost investment in this country.
Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?
Of course it does.
And that's why it is done.
Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.
Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.
Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.
But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.
And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.
There's a difference between shouting Nazis and comparing language used with Nazi propaganda. If I say Cameron referring to swarms of immigrants is similar to language used by the Nazis I'm obviously not calling Cameron a Nazi, and to pretend I am is either stupid or dishonest or both. It is a request not to use that kind of language because it makes mistreatment of groups of people more likely, using an admittedly extreme example from history that everyone knows about.
So is there a list of approved words which don't have a Nazi connection ?
Or is it okay to say 'swarm of immigrants' if there is a 'swarm of immigrants' ?
What is the definition of 'swarm of immigrants' in any case.
And why the immediate Nazi allusion ? There's been no shortage of governments who have talked about illegal immigration - here's Barack Obama saying that illegal immigrants are 'pouring' into the USA:
Perhaps we should start referring to Sunak and Braverman wanting to pursue a deportation policy similar to that of Barack Obama.
A bit easier for the USA, half of their illegal migrants are Mexican, and Mexico is willing to accept them back.
The fundamental problem we have is that our failed asylum cases are mostly from places like Afghanistan Iran, Eritrea, Yemen etc that won't take them back.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The 'rule' should be say what you like but be prepared to be ridiculed if it is hyperbole or just plain idiotic. Ridicule should be the limit of the punishment for such idiocy.
As noted last night, if your flagship policy is so fragile that it can be entirely derailed by a single tweet, then perhaps it's not as robust a position as its proponents claim
I have yet to see evidence of anything as coherent as a policy. Rather a serious of statements designed to make it appear that they are 'doing something' and 'getting tough'.
I am more than happy to concede that - as with the NIP stuff a couple of weeks ago - it is possible there is other stuff going on behind the scenes that is more coherent and robust. But I have yet to see any evidence for it.
Richard, are you in favour of the deal? For me, the absence of any legal exit for the UK (unlike the current NIP) is a dealbreaker.
Yes I am in favour of the deal. We enter into many treaties where there is no stated exit clause except recourse to the Vienna Convention. That does not bother me at all. What is important is that it is a treaty/deal which is strictly limited in its scope without the enabling clauses that allowed for further rules/laws to be imposed unilaterally.
I am obviously not a Brexit purist, being in favour of EEA membership, so this is, to my mind, a sensible compromise by all sides.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
I would imagine that DK largely - but not exclusively - corresponds to Unionist voters.
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.
There is a view among some SNP supporters that Forbes support is “coming from Unionists because she doesn’t want independence”. Meanwhile, Mr Kelly, late of this parish has been doing some polling:
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)
Funnily enough, I think that is the order I’ll be voting myself:
1. Forbes 2. Yousaf 3. Regan
(I changed my mind about Regan 2 when she made the gob-smacking decision to hop into bed with the Bonkers Bath Bad-un.)
Part of the establishment after all Stuart, you obviously have no wish for independence after all that pretending. Wonder which staffer , SPAD you are.
On top of the money paid to Macron, it would probably help if we financially supported the EU interdiction of migrant boats in the Med and Aegean. The further upstream the better.
Given that the EU handed them over to slavers? Really?
That’s not true.
The EU subsidised the slave catchers to catch migrants.
The migrants never touched Europe - out of sight, out of mind.
Well our Home Secretary thinks Slavery rules should not apply to illegals, so what's the problem?
The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.
The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.
US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.
The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.
As @MaxPB and others have pointed out these companies are an important part of our future and anyone who is not concerned about their continued growth and progress is an economic illiterate. Thankfully the days of Fuck business seem well behind us.
How on earth do you work that one out? What is a massive corporation tax hike and removing investment allowances if it's not 'fuck business'?
The only thing that I am aware of that is being taken away is the superdeduction of 130% of capital costs for qualifying investment that is currently due to expire at the end of this month. I will be astonished if the budget this week does not continue this or an equivalent benefit going forward. We absolutely need to boost investment in this country.
Allowing all expenses to count will give us a 4% GDP boost over 5 years, I expect that's what the rabbit will be in the budget as it allows the government to meet the medium term fiscal target and boost the trend growth rate without actually taking a bit hit to CT take. The 130% was too limited in scope, we need to take a more American attitude to investment which allows basically everything to be deducted.
So Sunak sought to polarise and divide us by dog whistling about immigration. And whilst it did not play out as he expected, he certainly succeeded. The sooner we get rid of this nasty bunch the better.
Isn't you using "dog whistling" dehumanising the people that will respond how Sunak wants?
I don’t think so, nice try though . It’s a pretty common phrase in politics to describe creating signals for your core vote.
To be ugly I guess it would mean that you thought the actually pretty ugly if you think about it.
Really? The concept of a “dog whistle” is about communicating with your chosen target, whilst others are oblivious. Nothing ugly about that. All parties do it. Oh well.
I guess you’re thinking about dogs and are not a lover of man’s best friend. Loyal faithful companions and very clever.
I've never heard dog whistle used in anything but a pejorative sense, both about the whistler, and the people who might be susceptible to it. Ridiculous to pretend that it's meant as a compliment by dog lovers.
Similarly (although many times worse) I'm not comfortable with politicians describing migrants as "swarms", and WilliamGlenn finding examples of less pejorative uses of the word isn't going to persuade me that it's ok. I actually find it a dishonest exercise.
Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?
Of course it does.
And that's why it is done.
Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.
Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.
Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.
But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.
And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.
There's a difference between shouting Nazis and comparing language used with Nazi propaganda. If I say Cameron referring to swarms of immigrants is similar to language used by the Nazis I'm obviously not calling Cameron a Nazi, and to pretend I am is either stupid or dishonest or both. It is a request not to use that kind of language because it makes mistreatment of groups of people more likely, using an admittedly extreme example from history that everyone knows about.
So is there a list of approved words which don't have a Nazi connection ?
Or is it okay to say 'swarm of immigrants' if there is a 'swarm of immigrants' ?
What is the definition of 'swarm of immigrants' in any case.
And why the immediate Nazi allusion ? There's been no shortage of governments who have talked about illegal immigration - here's Barack Obama saying that illegal immigrants are 'pouring' into the USA:
Deportation and removal from the United States occurs when the U.S. government orders a person to leave the country. In fiscal year 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted 315,943 removals. Criteria for deportations are set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1227.
In the 105 years between 1892 and 1997, the United States deported 2.1 million people. Between 1993 and 2001, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, about 1,870,000 people were deported. Between 2001 and 2008, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, about 2.0 million people were deported, while between 2009 and 2016, during the Presidency of Barack Obama, about 3.2 million people were deported.
The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.
The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.
US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.
The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.
As @MaxPB and others have pointed out these companies are an important part of our future and anyone who is not concerned about their continued growth and progress is an economic illiterate. Thankfully the days of Fuck business seem well behind us.
It does seem that the supposed limit of £85 000 with one bank being guaranteed by the government is notional, and in reality there is no limit. Finance Directors need not worry about such trivia in the future.
Doesn't referring to people as Nazis count as dehumanizing ?
Of course it does.
And that's why it is done.
Dehumanize political opponents and they lose legitimacy.
Easier to do that than come up with rational criticisms and alternative ideas.
Now lots of political abuse involves some dehumanizing of opponents.
But the trouble 'Nazis' brings is that is a rather extreme dehumanizing and allows easy comparison of the words and actions of the political opponents with those of Hitler etc.
And its that comparison which results in those shouting 'Nazis' looking pretty stupid.
There's a difference between shouting Nazis and comparing language used with Nazi propaganda. If I say Cameron referring to swarms of immigrants is similar to language used by the Nazis I'm obviously not calling Cameron a Nazi, and to pretend I am is either stupid or dishonest or both. It is a request not to use that kind of language because it makes mistreatment of groups of people more likely, using an admittedly extreme example from history that everyone knows about.
So is there a list of approved words which don't have a Nazi connection ?
Or is it okay to say 'swarm of immigrants' if there is a 'swarm of immigrants' ?
What is the definition of 'swarm of immigrants' in any case.
And why the immediate Nazi allusion ? There's been no shortage of governments who have talked about illegal immigration - here's Barack Obama saying that illegal immigrants are 'pouring' into the USA:
Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.
The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.
Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
The market can work without government support if the government regulatory framework is tight enough. Why is the private provision of medical services so successful in Europe but such a disaster in the US? Because the European countries tightly regulate that market at all levels including limiting the profits that are permitted to be made. I agree this is not a pure free market - nothing is outside of anarchy - but it does not require the sorts of interventions in the market to keep them afloat that you are talking about or that we are seeing here with SVB.
Sadly those opposed to more privatisation look continually to the US for their example and not enough to the rest of the world.
The problem Richard is that the Tories are not advocating a European model, they're advocating a US model.
I agree with everything you said - but the only people that can deliver that are Labour/Lib Dems.
Well as you know I am not in any way tribal when it comes to parties - a plague on all your houses is my byword. I am interested in policies and practical implementation, not who is doing it. So if the only people willing and able to make the necessary changes are Labour or the Lib Dems then that is fine by me.
My only concern is that, just as you can claim the Tories are wedded to the US model, I can equally claim that Labour and the Lib Dems are too close to the 'Best in the World' NHS model. I hope Wes Streeting is being sincere in his plans but I fear he might have some problems (in the form of huge opposition from the NHS religious lobby) with the sorts of fundamental reform that is needed, no matter how much he might believe in it.
Interesting that MPs are being slower with their endorsements than MSPs.
MSPs and MPs have exactly the same number of votes as any other member, including me: one.
If Useless wins it then the SNP are F**ked. This is the Murrells last stand and if they ensure as we know they will that Useless gets it then the gravy trainers will et what they deserve in future elections. MP's are first in the firing line hence being a bit more reluctant I suspect. The donkey MSP's have till 2026 , but you can bet there will be massive move to ensure the grifters get a lifeboat of list seats when they get ousted by voters.
I think he will win though. John Swinney has endorsed him, following Stephen Flynn. I suspect the Swinney support will persuade SNP members who might, understandably, have been havering.
Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.
How many pounds for how much time, roughly?
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.
Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?
I can see why the City wants that.
The losses aren’t in London
But would you prefer that 300 viable companies close as an alternative?
I just see City folk running for a government bailout again, as soon as the wind turns against them.
But it's not the city, it's the end clients? The actual companies that have money with SVB UK. You know, not bankers?
As pointed out above, the regulator (essentially the government) has intervened already. To freeze the assets. Which includes, in effect, the liabilities as well. The whole thing is on ice.
So it’s up to the government if people with money in SVB U.K. can access *their own money* on Monday.
If the reports that it is a pure liquidity problem are correct, the money is all there. Just tied up in US Treasury bills.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
In Nazi Germany the targets were not outsiders but insiders.
Reflecting on the debate last night I have changed my opinion a bit.
Lineker was guilty of hyperbole in comparing the language to 1930s Germany, which everyone reasonably equates to the Nazis even if he did not use the word.
He went too far in making a point about his dislike for the immigration proposals (which I share).
However, the BBC were totally wrong to ban him and will likely have to backtrack.
Kudos to those on here who do not support Lineker's views but defend his right to state them.
To those who are happy to see him banned I say: we see your true colours now.
What about us that don't give a tinker's cuss for the Tories, the BBC , their F**ked up immigration policies or Gary Linekar and are bored to death with hearing fc*knuggets debating it.
Rishi is quite stupid. He doesn’t understand optics.
How big is his fucking pool? I have recently been instructed to build a pool as Mrs DA gets a stiff back as she spends a lot of time in her job bent over. She's a dentist not a tory MP's assistant.
My design is 40,000L and will use a 8kw heat pump powered by (a lot of) solar. Even if I were powering that from single phase mains AC it would still only be 33A. Unless he's got a massive grow op going in the attic the domestic supply could handle that.
The project is going to take a while as I am being assisted by my platoon of Ukrainian combat engineers who are enthusiastic but not particularly skilled.
Interesting that MPs are being slower with their endorsements than MSPs.
MSPs and MPs have exactly the same number of votes as any other member, including me: one.
If Useless wins it then the SNP are F**ked. This is the Murrells last stand and if they ensure as we know they will that Useless gets it then the gravy trainers will et what they deserve in future elections. MP's are first in the firing line hence being a bit more reluctant I suspect. The donkey MSP's have till 2026 , but you can bet there will be massive move to ensure the grifters get a lifeboat of list seats when they get ousted by voters.
I think he will win though. John Swinney has endorsed him, following Stephen Flynn. I suspect the Swinney support will persuade SNP members who might, understandably, have been havering.
"Wavering", please. Havering is something else entirely.
Though not as bad as the current PB insistence that perfectly worthy male farmworkers in the Lowlands of Scotland, aka loons, are as batshit crazy as the Truss administration [delete and insert as wished].
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
In Nazi Germany the targets were not outsiders but insiders.
I don't think the Nazis regarded their Jews (and other persecuted minorities) as insiders.
Rishi is quite stupid. He doesn’t understand optics.
How big is his fucking pool? I have recently been instructed to build a pool as Mrs DA gets a stiff back as she spends a lot of time in her job bent over. She's a dentist not a tory MP's assistant.
My design is 40,000L and will use a 8kw heat pump powered by (a lot of) solar. Even if I were powering that from single phase mains AC it would still only be 33A. Unless he's got a massive grow op going in the attic the domestic supply could handle that.
The project is going to take a while as I am being assisted by my platoon of Ukrainian combat engineers who are enthusiastic but not particularly skilled.
Must be difficult to source the plastic to dig the hole in the first place.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
In Nazi Germany the targets were not outsiders but insiders.
I don't think the Nazis regarded their Jews (and other persecuted minorities) as insiders.
And do you accept their framing? This is perhaps the most insidious aspect of trying to compare anything Suella Braverman has said with Nazi Germany.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The 'rule' should be say what you like but be prepared to be ridiculed if it is hyperbole or just plain idiotic. Ridicule should be the limit of the punishment for such idiocy.
I agree in the main. On a spectrum of 'utter hyperbole' to 'bang on the money', where is any particular comment? Then react accordingly. Fwiw, Lineker's is about in the middle for me (the Germany 30s bit, I mean, the rest is bang on). So it can be refuted but not ridiculed.
As for consequences, I like a bit of Free Speech as much as the next man however I'm not an Absolutist on the matter. Eg I agree with having Hate Speech laws. Some things it should be illegal to say (context and circumstance dependent).
And I also think it can be appropriate (again heavily context and circumstance dependent) for somebody to face serious personal consequences (eg loss of income/status/platform) for something they have said, regardless of its legality.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
In Nazi Germany the targets were not outsiders but insiders.
I don't think the Nazis regarded their Jews (and other persecuted minorities) as insiders.
And do you accept their framing? This is perhaps the most insidious aspect of trying to compare anything Suella Braverman has said with Nazi Germany.
No I don't, but I don’t accept Suellas framing either.
I'm not averse to some kind of bridging loan facility for SVB UK (at least for underlying deposit holders), but if we do it then any cash injection should be structured as senior to any other liabilities and carry at least a market level of interest (I'm going to guess around 8% pa for small risky businesses).
The terms of any bailout are key to ensuring the taxpayer doesn't end up holding losses. It should also encourage VC firms to inject cash themselves where that's an option.
The various proposals so far are that the original shareholders get wiped out. That’s the bankers.
A couple of the big banks are already looking at buying the wreckage at a knockdown price.
What a large number of people seem to have trouble with is that the issue at hand is the *contents* of the bank - other people’s money.
The other people deserve and need their money. If they can’t get it in the short term, that could bankrupt them as well.
That is precisely why the bank regulation system was created in Victorian times.
But the bottom line is that we can't get the French to sort this for us - we need to eliminate the pull factors.
The only way to do this, honestly, is to make the United Kingdom such a shit hole that no one wants to come as the situation in the UK is worse than were they came from.
Absent dropping a few nukes on ourselves, there is no short term way to do that. And of course, making the UK such a bad place to live has other unintended consequences too (namely, we'd all be living in a shit hole).
Perhaps mandating that at least one meal a day must be a pineapple pizza would do it?
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
You’ve not been a Tory for some time. You would be far happier as a LibDem.
Being a member of any party in the uk can't be described as being happier or sadder. You are merely quibbling about which level of Dante's inferno they are on
The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.
The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.
US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.
The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.
As @MaxPB and others have pointed out these companies are an important part of our future and anyone who is not concerned about their continued growth and progress is an economic illiterate. Thankfully the days of Fuck business seem well behind us.
How on earth do you work that one out? What is a massive corporation tax hike and removing investment allowances if it's not 'fuck business'?
The only thing that I am aware of that is being taken away is the superdeduction of 130% of capital costs for qualifying investment that is currently due to expire at the end of this month. I will be astonished if the budget this week does not continue this or an equivalent benefit going forward. We absolutely need to boost investment in this country.
Allowing all expenses to count will give us a 4% GDP boost over 5 years, I expect that's what the rabbit will be in the budget as it allows the government to meet the medium term fiscal target and boost the trend growth rate without actually taking a bit hit to CT take. The 130% was too limited in scope, we need to take a more American attitude to investment which allows basically everything to be deducted.
Oh I agree. I have argued on here for such many times. We also need to positively encourage (ie superdeduction) investment in relevant training as well.
For me the actual rate of CT is of secondary importance. if businesses are encouraged to invest and train sufficiently they will be paying that rate on only a small portion of their profits in any event. A very low rate normally goes with very few deductions and is not, in my view, the best way to address our current problems.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
In Nazi Germany the targets were not outsiders but insiders.
I don't think the Nazis regarded their Jews (and other persecuted minorities) as insiders.
And do you accept their framing? This is perhaps the most insidious aspect of trying to compare anything Suella Braverman has said with Nazi Germany.
Your assiduous defences of Trump and his language were fantastic training.
One thing I will say is that politicians frothing about illegal immigrants (or promising to control immigration generally) but doing nothing about it is never going to be beneficial.
And I'll suggest that what upsets some people about Sunak and Braverman is that they might actually DO something about illegal immigrants rather than only talk about them.
They might even deport illegal immigrants at the same rate that Barack Obama did.
I'm not upset about that, the first thing I said was that this policy won't work.
Are you seriously suggesting anyone actually wants people crossing the sea and drowning?
I’ve met some local people in the Calais area who are foaming at the mouth haters of immigrants.
I can just imagine the owner of one small B&B place we stayed at saying that - he blamed them for the collapse in trade and was quite sulphurous. Never felt quite so glad to get on the road. That kind of glowing hate is not pleasant to be around.
Interesting that MPs are being slower with their endorsements than MSPs.
MSPs and MPs have exactly the same number of votes as any other member, including me: one.
If Useless wins it then the SNP are F**ked. This is the Murrells last stand and if they ensure as we know they will that Useless gets it then the gravy trainers will et what they deserve in future elections. MP's are first in the firing line hence being a bit more reluctant I suspect. The donkey MSP's have till 2026 , but you can bet there will be massive move to ensure the grifters get a lifeboat of list seats when they get ousted by voters.
I think he will win though. John Swinney has endorsed him, following Stephen Flynn. I suspect the Swinney support will persuade SNP members who might, understandably, have been havering.
FFS , Swinney is another loser, he wrecked SNP before and needed Salmond to come back and rescue it , then he is deputy to the next failure and between them tehy are going to put in another total loser to finish off the SNP for good. You coudl not make it up.
Interesting that MPs are being slower with their endorsements than MSPs.
MSPs and MPs have exactly the same number of votes as any other member, including me: one.
If Useless wins it then the SNP are F**ked. This is the Murrells last stand and if they ensure as we know they will that Useless gets it then the gravy trainers will et what they deserve in future elections. MP's are first in the firing line hence being a bit more reluctant I suspect. The donkey MSP's have till 2026 , but you can bet there will be massive move to ensure the grifters get a lifeboat of list seats when they get ousted by voters.
I think he will win though. John Swinney has endorsed him, following Stephen Flynn. I suspect the Swinney support will persuade SNP members who might, understandably, have been havering.
"Wavering", please. Havering is something else entirely.
Though not as bad as the current PB insistence that perfectly worthy male farmworkers in the Lowlands of Scotland, aka loons, are as batshit crazy as the Truss administration [delete and insert as wished].
?? Havering means (or can mean) to hum and haw, act indecisively. Fair comment, surely? Are you a haverer in this instance? Wouldn't blame you...
Interesting that MPs are being slower with their endorsements than MSPs.
MSPs and MPs have exactly the same number of votes as any other member, including me: one.
If Useless wins it then the SNP are F**ked. This is the Murrells last stand and if they ensure as we know they will that Useless gets it then the gravy trainers will et what they deserve in future elections. MP's are first in the firing line hence being a bit more reluctant I suspect. The donkey MSP's have till 2026 , but you can bet there will be massive move to ensure the grifters get a lifeboat of list seats when they get ousted by voters.
I think he will win though. John Swinney has endorsed him, following Stephen Flynn. I suspect the Swinney support will persuade SNP members who might, understandably, have been havering.
"Wavering", please. Havering is something else entirely.
Though not as bad as the current PB insistence that perfectly worthy male farmworkers in the Lowlands of Scotland, aka loons, are as batshit crazy as the Truss administration [delete and insert as wished].
?? Havering means (or can mean) to hum and haw, act indecisively. Fair comment, surely? Are you a haverer in this instance? Wouldn't blame you...
No, to haver or haiver means to talkgossip, nonsense, etc. For example, the great James Hogg in 'Tales of a Shepherd':
"Will you stand clattering and clattering, and haver-havering this hale blessed day, and never think of setting away to your work?"
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.
One of the better poems my kids studied at school was Street Talk by JK Annand
There was a rammie in the street, A stishie and stramash. The crabbit wifie up the stair Pit up her winda sash.
“Nou what’s adae?” the wifie cried, “Juist tell me what’s adae.” A day is twinty-fower hours, missis, Nou gie us peace to play.
“Juist tell me what’s ado,” she cried, “And nane o yer gab,” cried she. D’ye no ken a doo’s a pigeon, missis? Nou haud your wheesht a wee.
“I want to ken what’s up,” she cried, “And nae mair o yer cheek, ye loun.” It’s only yer winda that’s up, missis. For guidsake pit it doun.
David, is stishie an autocorrect , should surely be "stooshie" or is it an east coast aberration.
But the bottom line is that we can't get the French to sort this for us - we need to eliminate the pull factors.
The only way to do this, honestly, is to make the United Kingdom such a shit hole that no one wants to come as the situation in the UK is worse than were they came from.
Absent dropping a few nukes on ourselves, there is no short term way to do that. And of course, making the UK such a bad place to live has other unintended consequences too (namely, we'd all be living in a shit hole).
Perhaps mandating that at least one meal a day must be a pineapple pizza would do it?
Blair proposed to violate their human rights by housing them in Glasgow and Edinburgh*….
*Which always amazed me. Hating on Glasgow just require superficial knowledge of the place (ie none). But even the most “only know Edinburgh from shortbread tins” types… do they really have a negative view of the place? It’s a tourist town, FFS. The locals make a fortune from the fact that people want to go there.
One thing I will say is that politicians frothing about illegal immigrants (or promising to control immigration generally) but doing nothing about it is never going to be beneficial.
And I'll suggest that what upsets some people about Sunak and Braverman is that they might actually DO something about illegal immigrants rather than only talk about them.
They might even deport illegal immigrants at the same rate that Barack Obama did.
I'm not upset about that, the first thing I said was that this policy won't work.
Are you seriously suggesting anyone actually wants people crossing the sea and drowning?
If you're so convinced that the policy will not work perhaps you could suggest a policy which might work.
Call yourself a deportation consultant and the government will pay you big money if you've got the answer.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The 'rule' should be say what you like but be prepared to be ridiculed if it is hyperbole or just plain idiotic. Ridicule should be the limit of the punishment for such idiocy.
I agree in the main. On a spectrum of 'utter hyperbole' to 'bang on the money', where is any particular comment? Then react accordingly. Fwiw, Lineker's is about in the middle for me (the Germany 30s bit, I mean, the rest is bang on). So it can be refuted but not ridiculed.
As for consequences, I like a bit of Free Speech as much as the next man however I'm not an Absolutist on the matter. Eg I agree with having Hate Speech laws. Some things it should be illegal to say (context and circumstance dependent).
And I also think it can be appropriate (again heavily context and circumstance dependent) for somebody to face serious personal consequences (eg loss of income/status/platform) for something they have said, regardless of its legality.
Why not limit withdrawals to £85 000 per account until the receiver can assess the assets?
Once that is done, and we can see the remainder, then it may be possible to release more funds.
But the bottom line is that we can't get the French to sort this for us - we need to eliminate the pull factors.
The only way to do this, honestly, is to make the United Kingdom such a shit hole that no one wants to come as the situation in the UK is worse than were they came from.
Absent dropping a few nukes on ourselves, there is no short term way to do that. And of course, making the UK such a bad place to live has other unintended consequences too (namely, we'd all be living in a shit hole).
Perhaps mandating that at least one meal a day must be a pineapple pizza would do it?
Blair proposed to violate their human rights by housing them in Glasgow and Edinburgh*….
*Which always amazed me. Hating on Glasgow just require superficial knowledge of the place (ie none). But even the most “only know Edinburgh from shortbread tins” types… do they really have a negative view of the place? It’s a tourist town, FFS. The locals make a fortune from the fact that people want to go there.
Mr Blair was sent to boarding school in Edinburgh. Possibly that has something to do with it.
Just as a final point on placemen, it is possible to be a placeman and still produce good results, because in the late '80s and early 1990s the BBC produced some of its best ever material, and Checkland was in charge ; it's just less likely.
Dyke was a sort of placeman who didn't damage the BBC that much, and I don't think Davie has been creatively disastrous ; but he just looks to have clear connections on the more political side to the Tory government, like Sharp, and which are seemingly reflected in what he's doing, and quite possibly in the corporation's news output. As mentioned yesterday, the level of right-leaning administrative dominance in the BBC was becoming much the same in the mid-late 1990's. Just take all this all this out of the hands of politicians.
One thing I will say is that politicians frothing about illegal immigrants (or promising to control immigration generally) but doing nothing about it is never going to be beneficial.
And I'll suggest that what upsets some people about Sunak and Braverman is that they might actually DO something about illegal immigrants rather than only talk about them.
They might even deport illegal immigrants at the same rate that Barack Obama did.
I'm not upset about that, the first thing I said was that this policy won't work.
Are you seriously suggesting anyone actually wants people crossing the sea and drowning?
If you're so convinced that the policy will not work perhaps you could suggest a policy which might work.
Call yourself a deportation consultant and the government will pay you big money if you've got the answer.
Well we could start by opening legal routes for these people to use...
Hmm it's already started, a friend of mine just had a rare Sunday email from the company founder suggesting that they're not long for this world as their entire series A is with SVB and there's no timeline about getting access to it beyond the $250k insurance. They're in talks with their VC for bridge funding but if that falls through he's looking for a new job he thinks.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
In Nazi Germany the targets were not outsiders but insiders.
I don't think the Nazis regarded their Jews (and other persecuted minorities) as insiders.
Very much not. Except in the sense of secret 'inner' circle/cabal calling all the shots at the expense of the decent hard-working 'real' German people.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
In Nazi Germany the targets were not outsiders but insiders.
But the bottom line is that we can't get the French to sort this for us - we need to eliminate the pull factors.
The only way to do this, honestly, is to make the United Kingdom such a shit hole that no one wants to come as the situation in the UK is worse than were they came from.
Absent dropping a few nukes on ourselves, there is no short term way to do that. And of course, making the UK such a bad place to live has other unintended consequences too (namely, we'd all be living in a shit hole).
Perhaps mandating that at least one meal a day must be a pineapple pizza would do it?
Blair proposed to violate their human rights by housing them in Glasgow and Edinburgh*….
*Which always amazed me. Hating on Glasgow just require superficial knowledge of the place (ie none). But even the most “only know Edinburgh from shortbread tins” types… do they really have a negative view of the place? It’s a tourist town, FFS. The locals make a fortune from the fact that people want to go there.
Britain was far from a sh thole in the mid 90s yet net migration was low. Same ith japan you can hardly argue thats a sh t hole.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The 'rule' should be say what you like but be prepared to be ridiculed if it is hyperbole or just plain idiotic. Ridicule should be the limit of the punishment for such idiocy.
I agree in the main. On a spectrum of 'utter hyperbole' to 'bang on the money', where is any particular comment? Then react accordingly. Fwiw, Lineker's is about in the middle for me (the Germany 30s bit, I mean, the rest is bang on). So it can be refuted but not ridiculed.
As for consequences, I like a bit of Free Speech as much as the next man however I'm not an Absolutist on the matter. Eg I agree with having Hate Speech laws. Some things it should be illegal to say (context and circumstance dependent).
And I also think it can be appropriate (again heavily context and circumstance dependent) for somebody to face serious personal consequences (eg loss of income/status/platform) for something they have said, regardless of its legality.
Why not limit withdrawals to £85 000 per account until the receiver can assess the assets?
Once that is done, and we can see the remainder, then it may be possible to release more funds.
That would mean any business with its accounts with SVB would fail, due to being unable to meet bills and payroll.
How long would your unit at the hospital run on £85k?
But the bottom line is that we can't get the French to sort this for us - we need to eliminate the pull factors.
The only way to do this, honestly, is to make the United Kingdom such a shit hole that no one wants to come as the situation in the UK is worse than were they came from.
Absent dropping a few nukes on ourselves, there is no short term way to do that. And of course, making the UK such a bad place to live has other unintended consequences too (namely, we'd all be living in a shit hole).
Perhaps mandating that at least one meal a day must be a pineapple pizza would do it?
Blair proposed to violate their human rights by housing them in Glasgow and Edinburgh*….
*Which always amazed me. Hating on Glasgow just require superficial knowledge of the place (ie none). But even the most “only know Edinburgh from shortbread tins” types… do they really have a negative view of the place? It’s a tourist town, FFS. The locals make a fortune from the fact that people want to go there.
Mr Blair was sent to boarding school in Edinburgh. Possibly that has something to do with it.
It wasn’t Blair who claimed it was a human rights violation.
The lawyers in question were actually arguing that there was a Right To Live In London….
The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.
The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.
US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.
The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.
As @MaxPB and others have pointed out these companies are an important part of our future and anyone who is not concerned about their continued growth and progress is an economic illiterate. Thankfully the days of Fuck business seem well behind us.
David, I have never heard Max give one iota of attention to any ordinary worker getting the chop or suggesting the government bail out their companies. It is only because it is his chums on the receiving end he is suddenly the caped crusader. When these over privileged overpaid fcukwits start caring about ordinary people I will shed a tear for them. Max in particular would have pensioners in poverty , berates ordinary workers but lots of crocodile tears for his overpaid tosser friends , zero sympathy here I am afraid.
I agree with everything Lineker said. But that is irrelevant.
You either agree with his right to speak in a personal capacity on Twitter or in the public domain or you don't. He's not a BBC employee and even if he was, they've been doing politics publicly for years.
Jimmy Saville Noel Edmunds Andrew Neil Richard Sharpe Tim Davey
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The 'rule' should be say what you like but be prepared to be ridiculed if it is hyperbole or just plain idiotic. Ridicule should be the limit of the punishment for such idiocy.
I agree in the main. On a spectrum of 'utter hyperbole' to 'bang on the money', where is any particular comment? Then react accordingly. Fwiw, Lineker's is about in the middle for me (the Germany 30s bit, I mean, the rest is bang on). So it can be refuted but not ridiculed.
As for consequences, I like a bit of Free Speech as much as the next man however I'm not an Absolutist on the matter. Eg I agree with having Hate Speech laws. Some things it should be illegal to say (context and circumstance dependent).
And I also think it can be appropriate (again heavily context and circumstance dependent) for somebody to face serious personal consequences (eg loss of income/status/platform) for something they have said, regardless of its legality.
Why not limit withdrawals to £85 000 per account until the receiver can assess the assets?
Once that is done, and we can see the remainder, then it may be possible to release more funds.
That would mean any business with its accounts with SVB would fail, due to being unable to meet bills and payroll.
How long would your unit at the hospital run on £85k?
Anything different and the government would be ripping up the guarantee limit.
If any depositor can make any withdrawal tommorow then they should. It makes a run a certainty.
Obviously the receiver needs to assess the assets very quickly, but if as obviously solvent as you claim then easy to get that done by payday.
The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.
The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.
US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.
The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.
As @MaxPB and others have pointed out these companies are an important part of our future and anyone who is not concerned about their continued growth and progress is an economic illiterate. Thankfully the days of Fuck business seem well behind us.
David, I have never heard Max give one iota of attention to any ordinary worker getting the chop or suggesting the government bail out their companies. It is only because it is his chums on the receiving end he is suddenly the caped crusader. When these over privileged overpaid fcukwits start caring about ordinary people I will shed a tear for them. Max in particular would have pensioners in poverty , berates ordinary workers but lots of crocodile tears for his overpaid tosser friends , zero sympathy here I am afraid.
Well we all care about our friends more than people we dont know. Thats human nature.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The 'rule' should be say what you like but be prepared to be ridiculed if it is hyperbole or just plain idiotic. Ridicule should be the limit of the punishment for such idiocy.
I agree in the main. On a spectrum of 'utter hyperbole' to 'bang on the money', where is any particular comment? Then react accordingly. Fwiw, Lineker's is about in the middle for me (the Germany 30s bit, I mean, the rest is bang on). So it can be refuted but not ridiculed.
As for consequences, I like a bit of Free Speech as much as the next man however I'm not an Absolutist on the matter. Eg I agree with having Hate Speech laws. Some things it should be illegal to say (context and circumstance dependent).
And I also think it can be appropriate (again heavily context and circumstance dependent) for somebody to face serious personal consequences (eg loss of income/status/platform) for something they have said, regardless of its legality.
Why not limit withdrawals to £85 000 per account until the receiver can assess the assets?
Once that is done, and we can see the remainder, then it may be possible to release more funds.
That would mean any business with its accounts with SVB would fail, due to being unable to meet bills and payroll.
How long would your unit at the hospital run on £85k?
Surely you can't encourage having all your cash in one institution? What's the point of capitalism if the state bails out your poor choices?
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.
The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.
Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
It’s a fair point. I’m just pointing out that the market inherently cannot work without government support. So the current Tory ideology is a failure
It’s not the “market” generally
Fractional banking has always needed a lender of last resort. It’s why it is such a highly regulated industry
If highly regulated why are they going bust so easily
But the bottom line is that we can't get the French to sort this for us - we need to eliminate the pull factors.
The only way to do this, honestly, is to make the United Kingdom such a shit hole that no one wants to come as the situation in the UK is worse than were they came from.
Absent dropping a few nukes on ourselves, there is no short term way to do that. And of course, making the UK such a bad place to live has other unintended consequences too (namely, we'd all be living in a shit hole).
Perhaps mandating that at least one meal a day must be a pineapple pizza would do it?
Blair proposed to violate their human rights by housing them in Glasgow and Edinburgh*….
*Which always amazed me. Hating on Glasgow just require superficial knowledge of the place (ie none). But even the most “only know Edinburgh from shortbread tins” types… do they really have a negative view of the place? It’s a tourist town, FFS. The locals make a fortune from the fact that people want to go there.
Britain was far from a sh thole in the mid 90s yet net migration was low. Same ith japan you can hardly argue thats a sh t hole.
The reason for Japanese low immigration is that
A) it’s a long way from the migrants it’s very very difficult to get to, except by large ship and plane. C) the locals don’t want immigrants, pretty much.
Any sane discussion on immigration would start with “What is the population level we want in this country?”
The government plans and controls the infrastructure. And the environment. Saying they shouldn’t plan and control the population level doesn’t make sense.
If you want free migration, you are racist hypocrite if you don’t want free development.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
The ideas were percolating throughout society...Hitler would never have got away with his anti semitism if substantial numbers of germans hadnt supported him.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
The ideas were percolating throughout society...Hitler would never have got away with his anti semitism if substantial numbers of germans hadnt supported him.
Neither would Edward I when he expelled the Jews from England in 1290.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
But the bottom line is that we can't get the French to sort this for us - we need to eliminate the pull factors.
The only way to do this, honestly, is to make the United Kingdom such a shit hole that no one wants to come as the situation in the UK is worse than were they came from.
Absent dropping a few nukes on ourselves, there is no short term way to do that. And of course, making the UK such a bad place to live has other unintended consequences too (namely, we'd all be living in a shit hole).
Perhaps mandating that at least one meal a day must be a pineapple pizza would do it?
Blair proposed to violate their human rights by housing them in Glasgow and Edinburgh*….
*Which always amazed me. Hating on Glasgow just require superficial knowledge of the place (ie none). But even the most “only know Edinburgh from shortbread tins” types… do they really have a negative view of the place? It’s a tourist town, FFS. The locals make a fortune from the fact that people want to go there.
Britain was far from a sh thole in the mid 90s yet net migration was low. Same ith japan you can hardly argue thats a sh t hole.
The reason for Japanese low immigration is that
A) it’s a long way from the migrants it’s very very difficult to get to, except by large ship and plane. C) the locals don’t want immigrants, pretty much.
Any sane discussion on immigration would start with “What is the population level we want in this country?”
The government plans and controls the infrastructure. And the environment. Saying they shouldn’t plan and control the population level doesn’t make sense.
If you want free migration, you are racist hypocrite if you don’t want free development.
And this is the problem. Guys like Lineker have a huge platform yet dont seem to want a rational discussion on immigration beyond emoting over the poor refugees.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
A more ancient perversion than that, isn't it?
Well sure the jews were kicked out of england was it around the 14th century.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Yes, that was either poorly expressed, or just about the most wilfully ignorant comment ever posted to PB. Let’s be charitable, and go for the first.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
A more ancient perversion than that, isn't it?
Well sure the jews were kicked out of england was it around the 14th century.
But the bottom line is that we can't get the French to sort this for us - we need to eliminate the pull factors.
The only way to do this, honestly, is to make the United Kingdom such a shit hole that no one wants to come as the situation in the UK is worse than were they came from.
Absent dropping a few nukes on ourselves, there is no short term way to do that. And of course, making the UK such a bad place to live has other unintended consequences too (namely, we'd all be living in a shit hole).
Perhaps mandating that at least one meal a day must be a pineapple pizza would do it?
Blair proposed to violate their human rights by housing them in Glasgow and Edinburgh*….
*Which always amazed me. Hating on Glasgow just require superficial knowledge of the place (ie none). But even the most “only know Edinburgh from shortbread tins” types… do they really have a negative view of the place? It’s a tourist town, FFS. The locals make a fortune from the fact that people want to go there.
Britain was far from a sh thole in the mid 90s yet net migration was low. Same ith japan you can hardly argue thats a sh t hole.
The reason for Japanese low immigration is that
A) it’s a long way from the migrants it’s very very difficult to get to, except by large ship and plane. C) the locals don’t want immigrants, pretty much.
Any sane discussion on immigration would start with “What is the population level we want in this country?”
The government plans and controls the infrastructure. And the environment. Saying they shouldn’t plan and control the population level doesn’t make sense.
If you want free migration, you are racist hypocrite if you don’t want free development.
And this is the problem. Guys like Lineker have a huge platform yet dont seem to want a rational discussion on immigration beyond emoting over the poor refugees.
Neither do the Tories.
If a Uighar dissident entered the country illegally, should their asylum claim be automatically denied, and them put on a plane to China?
The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.
The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.
US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.
The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.
As @MaxPB and others have pointed out these companies are an important part of our future and anyone who is not concerned about their continued growth and progress is an economic illiterate. Thankfully the days of Fuck business seem well behind us.
David, I have never heard Max give one iota of attention to any ordinary worker getting the chop or suggesting the government bail out their companies. It is only because it is his chums on the receiving end he is suddenly the caped crusader. When these over privileged overpaid fcukwits start caring about ordinary people I will shed a tear for them. Max in particular would have pensioners in poverty , berates ordinary workers but lots of crocodile tears for his overpaid tosser friends , zero sympathy here I am afraid.
Well we all care about our friends more than people we dont know. Thats human nature.
Some people tend to be more charitable and even handed, I assume you are meaning the royal "we" rather than reality.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
A more ancient perversion than that, isn't it?
Well sure the jews were kicked out of england was it around the 14th century.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Indeed, the virulently antisemitic German Social Party was only one of several operating in Germany towards the end of the C19th. Antisemitism was pretty pervasive in the 'civilised' west up to WWII. It might be said that the one service the Nazis did (and at a terrible cost) was to make antisemitism unacceptable in the mainstream, though of course it rages on the outer limits.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
I agree with everything Lineker said. But that is irrelevant.
You either agree with his right to speak in a personal capacity on Twitter or in the public domain or you don't. He's not a BBC employee and even if he was, they've been doing politics publicly for years.
Jimmy Saville Noel Edmunds Andrew Neil Richard Sharpe Tim Davey
Noel Edmonds is a good example of not aging well.
Surely you're a fan of his House Party, or Crinkly Bottom, Kinabalu ?
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Indeed, the virulently antisemitic German Social Party was only one of several operating in Germany towards the end of the C19th. Antisemitism was pretty pervasive in the 'civilised' west up to WWII. It might be said that the one service the Nazis did (and at a terrible cost) was to make antisemitism unacceptable in the mainstream, though of course it rages on the outer limits.
Yes jews werent allowed to join country clubs in the usa in recent history.
I understand Lineker is 63 so he is in the autumn of his career and I expect he will develop a political career going forward
Funny. I didn't think he was that old. He's older than Lynam was when he left the BBC.
Lineker could retire today and be set for the rest of his life.
I can't see a political career beckoning however. Which party would he join I wonder?
There's certainly a bit of space for a low tax, socially liberal and pro-immigration movement.
A party which would attract the votes of rich metropolitans and posho university towns but few others.
Its effectively what the LibDems have become.
I don't know about that. They feel fairly beige. I haven't followed them/Davey too closely of late but they seem to more middle ground rather than radical.
If I was of a suspicious mind, I'd look for Alistair Campbell pulling the strings in the background.
The BBC hierarchy didn't need to fall in to the obvious trap, though. They could have just pensioned him off at the end of the season if they really wanted rid.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
If I was of a suspicious mind, I'd look for Alistair Campbell pulling the strings in the background.
I don't see any reason to suspect anything strange is going on when Jewish people criticise this government's attitudes towards refugees. After all, if the UK had sent refugees back to Germany on the 1930s, many Jewish people living here now would not exist.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
That's quite a complicated one, I think. There was a very distinctive strain of German antisemitism developing from about Wagner and Nietzsche onwards, but on the other hand Germany was one of the first places to emancipate the Jews, and also many of the European Jews who made the greatest contributions were either German, or Austrian - Einstein, Freud, Mahler, Marx, Wittgenstein etc.
The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.
The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.
US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.
The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.
As @MaxPB and others have pointed out these companies are an important part of our future and anyone who is not concerned about their continued growth and progress is an economic illiterate. Thankfully the days of Fuck business seem well behind us.
David, I have never heard Max give one iota of attention to any ordinary worker getting the chop or suggesting the government bail out their companies. It is only because it is his chums on the receiving end he is suddenly the caped crusader. When these over privileged overpaid fcukwits start caring about ordinary people I will shed a tear for them. Max in particular would have pensioners in poverty , berates ordinary workers but lots of crocodile tears for his overpaid tosser friends , zero sympathy here I am afraid.
Malc, I'd introduce a 120% tax surcharge on Scottish people called Malcolm, just for you. 👌
I'd also like you to prove that I haven't supported all industries. I'm pretty sure I was here suggesting the government bail out Sheffield forgemasters when it was going bankrupt and to hugely increase investment in industries across the country. Specifically I've said many, many times the government needs matched investment funding for energy and industrial security. I'd pay for it, yes, by cutting the state pension for people who have private income of £50k plus and an asset value tax for people with £500k+ assets mirroring beneficial trust taxation (which is a pretty big tax rise for "me and my mates"). It's not unreasonable.
If I was of a suspicious mind, I'd look for Alistair Campbell pulling the strings in the background.
The BBC hierarchy didn't need to fall in to the obvious trap, though. They could have just pensioned him off at the end of the season if they really wanted rid.
Whilst it is possible to have any of a number of perfectly reasonable views on Lineker and his tweet, it is unquestionably the case that the BBC have handled this very badly.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
Comments
Are you seriously suggesting anyone actually wants people crossing the sea and drowning?
I guess you’re thinking about dogs and are not a lover of man’s best friend. Loyal faithful companions and very clever.
The fundamental problem we have is that our failed asylum cases are mostly from places like Afghanistan Iran, Eritrea, Yemen etc that won't take them back.
I am obviously not a Brexit purist, being in favour of EEA membership, so this is, to my mind, a sensible compromise by all sides.
Similarly (although many times worse) I'm not comfortable with politicians describing migrants as "swarms", and WilliamGlenn finding examples of less pejorative uses of the word isn't going to persuade me that it's ok. I actually find it a dishonest exercise.
But it's a slippery slope from pouring to flooding!
In the 105 years between 1892 and 1997, the United States deported 2.1 million people. Between 1993 and 2001, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, about 1,870,000 people were deported. Between 2001 and 2008, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, about 2.0 million people were deported, while between 2009 and 2016, during the Presidency of Barack Obama, about 3.2 million people were deported.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_and_removal_from_the_United_States
So the mass deportations accelerated under Bill Clinton and reached a peak under Barack Obama.
So if the UK deported 80k a year would than be equivalent to Hitler's Germany or Obama's USA ?
My only concern is that, just as you can claim the Tories are wedded to the US model, I can equally claim that Labour and the Lib Dems are too close to the 'Best in the World' NHS model. I hope Wes Streeting is being sincere in his plans but I fear he might have some problems (in the form of huge opposition from the NHS religious lobby) with the sorts of fundamental reform that is needed, no matter how much he might believe in it.
So it’s up to the government if people with money in SVB U.K. can access *their own money* on Monday.
If the reports that it is a pure liquidity problem are correct, the money is all there. Just tied up in US Treasury bills.
Didn't the CotE keep away from the media in the weeks and months before a Budget in the not too distant past ?
Purdah was the phrase used IIRC.
When did things change ?
My design is 40,000L and will use a 8kw heat pump powered by (a lot of) solar. Even if I were powering that from single phase mains AC it would still only be 33A. Unless he's got a massive grow op going in the attic the domestic supply could handle that.
The project is going to take a while as I am being assisted by my platoon of Ukrainian combat engineers who are enthusiastic but not particularly skilled.
Though not as bad as the current PB insistence that perfectly worthy male farmworkers in the Lowlands of Scotland, aka loons, are as batshit crazy as the Truss administration [delete and insert as wished].
As for consequences, I like a bit of Free Speech as much as the next man however I'm not an Absolutist on the matter. Eg I agree with having Hate Speech laws. Some things it should be illegal to say (context and circumstance dependent).
And I also think it can be appropriate (again heavily context and circumstance dependent) for somebody to face serious personal consequences (eg loss of income/status/platform) for something they have said, regardless of its legality.
A couple of the big banks are already looking at buying the wreckage at a knockdown price.
What a large number of people seem to have trouble with is that the issue at hand is the *contents* of the bank - other people’s money.
The other people deserve and need their money. If they can’t get it in the short term, that could bankrupt them as well.
That is precisely why the bank regulation system was created in Victorian times.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-german-churches-and-the-nazi-state
Absent dropping a few nukes on ourselves, there is no short term way to do that.
And of course, making the UK such a bad place to live has other unintended consequences too (namely, we'd all be living in a shit hole).
Perhaps mandating that at least one meal a day must be a pineapple pizza would do it?
For me the actual rate of CT is of secondary importance. if businesses are encouraged to invest and train sufficiently they will be paying that rate on only a small portion of their profits in any event. A very low rate normally goes with very few deductions and is not, in my view, the best way to address our current problems.
I can just imagine the owner of one small B&B place we stayed at saying that - he blamed them for the collapse in trade and was quite sulphurous. Never felt quite so glad to get on the road. That kind of glowing hate is not pleasant to be around.
Lineker could retire today and be set for the rest of his life.
I can't see a political career beckoning however. Which party would he join I wonder?
"Will you stand clattering and clattering, and haver-havering this hale blessed day, and never think of setting away to your work?"
https://dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/haiver_v_n1
Though quite appropriate for PB actually sometimes!
For some reason waver and haver have become muddled by non-Scots.
*Which always amazed me. Hating on Glasgow just require superficial knowledge of the place (ie none). But even the most “only know Edinburgh from shortbread tins” types… do they really have a negative view of the place? It’s a tourist town, FFS. The locals make a fortune from the fact that people want to go there.
Call yourself a deportation consultant and the government will pay you big money if you've got the answer.
Once that is done, and we can see the remainder, then it may be possible to release more funds.
Dyke was a sort of placeman who didn't damage the BBC that much, and I don't think Davie has been creatively disastrous ; but he just looks to have clear connections on the more political side to the Tory government, like Sharp, and which are seemingly reflected in what he's doing, and quite possibly in the corporation's news output. As mentioned yesterday, the level of right-leaning administrative dominance in the BBC was becoming much the same in the mid-late 1990's. Just take all this all this out of the hands of politicians.
How long would your unit at the hospital run on £85k?
The lawyers in question were actually arguing that there was a Right To Live In London….
When these over privileged overpaid fcukwits start caring about ordinary people I will shed a tear for them.
Max in particular would have pensioners in poverty , berates ordinary workers but lots of crocodile tears for his overpaid tosser friends , zero sympathy here I am afraid.
If any depositor can make any withdrawal tommorow then they should. It makes a run a certainty.
Obviously the receiver needs to assess the assets very quickly, but if as obviously solvent as you claim then easy to get that done by payday.
If however the Assets are not there...
Its effectively what the LibDems have become.
A) it’s a long way from the migrants
C) the locals don’t want immigrants, pretty much.
Any sane discussion on immigration would start with “What is the population level we want in this country?”
The government plans and controls the infrastructure. And the environment. Saying they shouldn’t plan and control the population level doesn’t make sense.
If you want free migration, you are racist hypocrite if you don’t want free development.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/daughter-of-a-jewish-refugee-delivers-thank-you-letter-to-linekers-home/
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Westmoreland is personal votes, the others protest votes.
If a Uighar dissident entered the country illegally, should their asylum claim be automatically denied, and them put on a plane to China?
That is what this government is planning.
These were milestones of 20th Century culture.
The BBC hierarchy didn't need to fall in to the obvious trap, though. They could have just pensioned him off at the end of the season if they really wanted rid.
I'd also like you to prove that I haven't supported all industries. I'm pretty sure I was here suggesting the government bail out Sheffield forgemasters when it was going bankrupt and to hugely increase investment in industries across the country. Specifically I've said many, many times the government needs matched investment funding for energy and industrial security. I'd pay for it, yes, by cutting the state pension for people who have private income of £50k plus and an asset value tax for people with £500k+ assets mirroring beneficial trust taxation (which is a pretty big tax rise for "me and my mates"). It's not unreasonable.