So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
I’m not sure the Tory gov are particular fans of Farage so not sure it’s a party political/political spectrum issue.
The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.
The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.
Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.
Note how quick they all are to opine on this but not on the Post Office, a company they actually own 100% and which the judge leading the inquiry set up by the government has said he cannot trust to comply with the inquiry's demands.
Coutts require an interview before you open an account so why they shouldn't have the right of self regarding Private institutions to expel you when they choose is a mystery. If Eton Harrow and Groucho's can do it why not Coutts? Not that Groucho's would allow Farage through their doors in the first place.
The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.
The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.
Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.
Malmesbury made the point to me the other day that if one bank can refuse a customer, many (all?) of the others might do the same, and that would be seriously inconvenient, and might hit all kids of people who banks to a dislike to, e.g. left-wingers like me.
I don't find the story exciting because I essentially think there's a free market in banking and banks should be entitled to provide or refuse services as they think fit, and I doubt if Farage or Corbyn or anyone else would really be umable to find a bank willing to serve them. But if we regard banking as an essential service (and I agree it is) and think this a serious risk, then I suppose the Government should operate a Bank of Last Resort open to anyone in Britain. Seems a bit statist, but isn't that where logic takes us?
My uncle, incidentally, had an account with the Bank of England - terrible service (only one branch) but he enjoyed the prestige of his chequebook. Take that, Coutts!
There are two things: refusal of a bank account, and refusal of premium services. I have a right to a bank account, I do not have a right to other services where the bank can impose eligibility criteria such as income.
To read the right wing press you would believe that the Nigel is being refused a bank account and thanks to the Coutts action will be unable to bank. This is incorrect.
You don't have an absolute right to a bank account. The biggest banks have to offer a basic bank account to the unbanked but they are still allowed to reject applications for these, and to do so without offering a reason.
In the last reporting period Natwest group rejected approx 25k basic bank account applications and accepted about 25k applications. For comparison Lloyds rejected 20k but accepted 120k.
The govt should be very interested to see why Natwest are rejecting half such applications whilst Lloyds can approve 6/7.
ULEZ will dent the Labour vote in Uxbridge, but not enough to swing the result, by itself, I think.
Tory chap says "vote for me to stop ULEZ" 1. If elected as MP, what can he do to stop ULEZ? I believe the answer is zero, but others may disagree 2. If not elected, that on his own definition means people support ULEZ. Which rather demolishes Mrs Trump's campaign when she runs for mayor against Khan
This all has a whiff of "vote Hague to save the pound" about it.
If Corbyn stands and splits the left vote we might get the rabid right wing Mayor Corbyn desires
Corbyn could even win as an independent as Livingstone did in 2000. Remember London even voted for Corbyn in 2019 despite his heavy national defeat
Corbyn’s in his mid 70’s. Does he really want or need the hassle which goes with being Mayor?
The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.
The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.
Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.
Malmesbury made the point to me the other day that if one bank can refuse a customer, many (all?) of the others might do the same, and that would be seriously inconvenient, and might hit all kids of people who banks to a dislike to, e.g. left-wingers like me.
I don't find the story exciting because I essentially think there's a free market in banking and banks should be entitled to provide or refuse services as they think fit, and I doubt if Farage or Corbyn or anyone else would really be umable to find a bank willing to serve them. But if we regard banking as an essential service (and I agree it is) and think this a serious risk, then I suppose the Government should operate a Bank of Last Resort open to anyone in Britain. Seems a bit statist, but isn't that where logic takes us?
My uncle, incidentally, had an account with the Bank of England - terrible service (only one branch) but he enjoyed the prestige of his chequebook. Take that, Coutts!
The Bank of England no longer does bank accounts for staff - the internal space got handed over for a Nat West branch…
The problem is that it isn’t just one bank able to black mark people. They share services doing this. So you can, easily, end up in a situation where only some bank in Lichtenstein will take you on.
This has happened to a number of ordinary people - sometimes as a result of fraud *against them*.
Imagine the fun of trying to get a lawyer to work for you (to get your. A king services back) without a bank account. Since the lawyer won’t work for cash, being worried themselves about reporting rules!
This does seem a problem that most of society, including intelligent and supposedly liberal posters on pb, are not going to give a damn about until it happens to them or someone they know. Sad.
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
Corbyn is an expert at handing wins to the Tories, but costing Labour London would be impressive even by his standards.
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
I think the reason people should care is because these high profile cases reveal the way 'normal' people get treated day in and day out.
I remember at the time of the Andrew Mitchell case where the police lied both about what had been said and then subsequently at a senior level about the meeting held with Mitchell, lots of people I know who didn't in any way like Mitchell or the Tories were looking at the case and saying that this just showed how the police lie day in and day out. The difference of course being that none celebrity/high profile people are not believed and have no recourse. High profile cases reveal the underlying issues that normal people deal with on a daily basis.
The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.
The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.
Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.
Malmesbury made the point to me the other day that if one bank can refuse a customer, many (all?) of the others might do the same, and that would be seriously inconvenient, and might hit all kids of people who banks to a dislike to, e.g. left-wingers like me.
I don't find the story exciting because I essentially think there's a free market in banking and banks should be entitled to provide or refuse services as they think fit, and I doubt if Farage or Corbyn or anyone else would really be umable to find a bank willing to serve them. But if we regard banking as an essential service (and I agree it is) and think this a serious risk, then I suppose the Government should operate a Bank of Last Resort open to anyone in Britain. Seems a bit statist, but isn't that where logic takes us?
My uncle, incidentally, had an account with the Bank of England - terrible service (only one branch) but he enjoyed the prestige of his chequebook. Take that, Coutts!
The Bank of England no longer does bank accounts for staff - the internal space got handed over for a Nat West branch…
The problem is that it isn’t just one bank able to black mark people. They share services doing this. So you can, easily, end up in a situation where only some bank in Lichtenstein will take you on.
This has happened to a number of ordinary people - sometimes as a result of fraud *against them*.
Imagine the fun of trying to get a lawyer to work for you (to get your. A king services back) without a bank account. Since the lawyer won’t work for cash, being worried themselves about reporting rules!
Fair enough. In that case I do think a state-run bank of last resort is needed, also for marginalised people who struggle to get an account because of being homeless etc.
Coutts require an interview before you open an account so why they shouldn't have the right of self regarding Private institutions to expel you when they choose is a mystery. If Eton Harrow and Groucho's can do it why not Coutts? Not that Groucho's would allow Farage through their doors in the first place.
A bet on holding any particular one of the three, Mike, or just one of the three?
I have a very small wager on them holding S&A.
Given my betting record, Lab gain is nailed on there.
That's bad news for Sunak.
Personally, I think the Tories will be pretty happy if they hold Selby.
If they lose it to Labour that's when they might panic and do something silly (or to be exact, even sillier than their recent record).
Selby will reflect national swing, Uxbridge won't so much due to ULEZ and Labour having a candidate who is a Camden councillor
Uxbridge voters have a track record of only voting for local candidates who care passionately about the community. Like that scruffy buffoon they elected last time.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
My views aren’t a million miles from yours actually - it is very weird that UK has these territories and I agree about nation states. I was only really making the point that the people who actually live somewhere are often forgotten in the geopolitical games that are played.
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
I think the reason people should care is because these high profile cases reveal the way 'normal' people get treated day in and day out.
I remember at the time of the Andrew Mitchell case where the police lied both about what had been said and then subsequently at a senior level about the meeting held with Mitchell, lots of people I know who didn't in any way like Mitchell or the Tories were looking at the case and saying that this just showed how the police lie day in and day out. The difference of course being that none celebrity/high profile people are not believed and have no recourse. High profile cases reveal the underlying issues that normal people deal with on a daily basis.
There is a story in the City, that a few years back, an enthusiastic non U.K. citizen employee nearly Red Flagged all the senior leadership of SF. Imagine the fun for the Peace Process.
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
Will the next Mayoralty election be using FPTP, or is it still STV? I imagine there will be a lot of Sadiq / Corbyn vote splitters for first and second preference, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue?
That photo....pretty desperate to pin your hopes on one issue. It might actually put off some Tory-inclined people who are concerned about pollution. On the other hand I wonder if the doctors' strike might help the Tories a tiny bit today if voters have been listening to the interviews. The BMA rep speaking to Kay Burley on Sky was a cold fish and not sympathy-inducing. He side-stepped all her remarks about vast salaries and pensions compared to most people and turned it into a discussion about recruitment/retention.
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound The hilarious thing about the Coutts affair is that my really posh rich mates regard Coutts as a rather tawdry institution for its celebrity and lottery winner clients. The real poshos bank at Hoare’s
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
My views aren’t a million miles from yours actually - it is very weird that UK has these territories and I agree about nation states. I was only really making the point that the people who actually live somewhere are often forgotten in the geopolitical games that are played.
I guess, but if their living there was itself an act of colonisation then I don't see it as a particularly impactful consideration. Like, I was fine with lots of white people being kicked out of African nations after the nationalist / independence movements in those countries - the ancestors of colonisers may not be at fault for the oppression people suffered, but they also shouldn't be free to benefit from it and have their (likely skewed by being ancestors of colonists) political views have large sway. In an ideal world in places like the US and Australia land would be given back to native peoples, but that will never happen...
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
Except of course modern Argentina itself only exists as a result of colonisation/recent migration.
A bet on holding any particular one of the three, Mike, or just one of the three?
I have a very small wager on them holding S&A.
Given my betting record, Lab gain is nailed on there.
That's bad news for Sunak.
Personally, I think the Tories will be pretty happy if they hold Selby.
If they lose it to Labour that's when they might panic and do something silly (or to be exact, even sillier than their recent record).
Selby will reflect national swing, Uxbridge won't so much due to ULEZ and Labour having a candidate who is a Camden councillor
Also, I suspect that Labour did quite a bit in Uxbridge last time, whereas Selby would have been more a "good luck chaps, you're basically on your own" campaign.
It's one of the reasons that the Lib Dems have a reputation for really spectacular by election swings; if you ramp up from doing next to nothing to throwing the kitchen sink at a seat, you are bound to pick up a lot more votes.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
My views aren’t a million miles from yours actually - it is very weird that UK has these territories and I agree about nation states. I was only really making the point that the people who actually live somewhere are often forgotten in the geopolitical games that are played.
I guess, but if their living there was itself an act of colonisation then I don't see it as a particularly impactful consideration. Like, I was fine with lots of white people being kicked out of African nations after the nationalist / independence movements in those countries - the ancestors of colonisers may not be at fault for the oppression people suffered, but they also shouldn't be free to benefit from it and have their (likely skewed by being ancestors of colonists) political views have large sway. In an ideal world in places like the US and Australia land would be given back to native peoples, but that will never happen...
Are you aware that a large portion of the black population of South Africa arrived quite recently? Where should they be evicted to?
My uncle, incidentally, had an account with the Bank of England - terrible service (only one branch) but he enjoyed the prestige of his chequebook. Take that, Coutts!
The Bank of England was a customer of my company in the 1980s. It was always fun getting their cheques for our invoices. If memory serves me correctly, the sort code was something like 10-00-00.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
Except of course modern Argentina itself only exists as a result of colonisation/recent migration.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
My views aren’t a million miles from yours actually - it is very weird that UK has these territories and I agree about nation states. I was only really making the point that the people who actually live somewhere are often forgotten in the geopolitical games that are played.
I guess, but if their living there was itself an act of colonisation then I don't see it as a particularly impactful consideration. Like, I was fine with lots of white people being kicked out of African nations after the nationalist / independence movements in those countries - the ancestors of colonisers may not be at fault for the oppression people suffered, but they also shouldn't be free to benefit from it and have their (likely skewed by being ancestors of colonists) political views have large sway. In an ideal world in places like the US and Australia land would be given back to native peoples, but that will never happen...
This sounds weirdly close to either: everyone must live in the lands where their ancestors lived, or ethnic cleansing is fine as long as it is happening to white people.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
Except of course modern Argentina itself only exists as a result of colonisation/recent migration.
Yes, but there are native populations still there too. Again, my general apathy to nation states existing doesn't make me feel strongly that Falklands or Gibraltar should belong to other countries, just that they shouldn't belong to the UK.
That photo....pretty desperate to pin your hopes on one issue. It might actually put off some Tory-inclined people who are concerned about pollution. On the other hand I wonder if the doctors' strike might help the Tories a tiny bit today if voters have been listening to the interviews. The BMA rep speaking to Kay Burley on Sky was a cold fish and not sympathy-inducing. He side-stepped all her remarks about vast salaries and pensions compared to most people and turned it into a discussion about recruitment/retention.
I wonder how much sympathy there is to the Consultants picket line when the majority of them will be earning at least 5 times the average wage when their private earnings are taken into account.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
My views aren’t a million miles from yours actually - it is very weird that UK has these territories and I agree about nation states. I was only really making the point that the people who actually live somewhere are often forgotten in the geopolitical games that are played.
I guess, but if their living there was itself an act of colonisation then I don't see it as a particularly impactful consideration. Like, I was fine with lots of white people being kicked out of African nations after the nationalist / independence movements in those countries - the ancestors of colonisers may not be at fault for the oppression people suffered, but they also shouldn't be free to benefit from it and have their (likely skewed by being ancestors of colonists) political views have large sway. In an ideal world in places like the US and Australia land would be given back to native peoples, but that will never happen...
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
Except of course modern Argentina itself only exists as a result of colonisation/recent migration.
Both good posts, which just goes to show there are no easy answers to this stuff.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
Except of course modern Argentina itself only exists as a result of colonisation/recent migration.
Yes, but there are native populations still there too. Again, my general apathy to nation states existing doesn't make me feel strongly that Falklands or Gibraltar should belong to other countries, just that they shouldn't belong to the UK.
But I think the Falklands was empty of humans before the British got there, and Argentina, I don't think, existed.
The litmus test for me is which country the inhabitants want to be part of. If Falklanders want to be part of Britain, it strikes me Britain has a duty to enable this to continue. Ditto Gibraltarians. Ditto the Northern Irish, or people from the Isle of Wight, or wherever. Nationalities don't fit into neat little geographical boxes.
My uncle, incidentally, had an account with the Bank of England - terrible service (only one branch) but he enjoyed the prestige of his chequebook. Take that, Coutts!
The Bank of England was a customer of my company in the 1980s. It was always fun getting their cheques for our invoices. If memory serves me correctly, the sort code was something like 10-00-00.
Up until 1987 there was a Bank of England branch in Southampton
The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.
The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.
Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.
Malmesbury made the point to me the other day that if one bank can refuse a customer, many (all?) of the others might do the same, and that would be seriously inconvenient, and might hit all kids of people who banks to a dislike to, e.g. left-wingers like me.
I don't find the story exciting because I essentially think there's a free market in banking and banks should be entitled to provide or refuse services as they think fit, and I doubt if Farage or Corbyn or anyone else would really be umable to find a bank willing to serve them. But if we regard banking as an essential service (and I agree it is) and think this a serious risk, then I suppose the Government should operate a Bank of Last Resort open to anyone in Britain. Seems a bit statist, but isn't that where logic takes us?
My uncle, incidentally, had an account with the Bank of England - terrible service (only one branch) but he enjoyed the prestige of his chequebook. Take that, Coutts!
The Bank of England already is - Huntington Life Sciences used to bank with them after the director’s granny’s body was dug up and stolen by animal rights nutters
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
Will the next Mayoralty election be using FPTP, or is it still STV? I imagine there will be a lot of Sadiq / Corbyn vote splitters for first and second preference, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue?
It’s under FPTP now . It was changed by the Tories to give themselves a better chance of winning !
Farage’s experience has been shared by thousands. I don’t think he has been singled out and I don’t think this is about banks analysing an account and deciding there is insufficient money.
This situation is to do with anti money laundering rules which started off as a purely money laundering fight (largely drug industry) but over the years have been subject to mission creep; politically exposed people being a part of this creep.
As I understand it there is a global database (world check risk management) run commercially by an agency (Reuters?) which has grown like topsy to include, in an extreme risk-adverse manner, anyone with any passing connection with politics. A cousin of a former politician? – you’re on the list.
The reason for this state of affairs is that banks have to comply with anti money laundering rules and want a low cost, easy method of complying. They have no time or inclination to do actual due diligence on their customers and the easy option is rely on this ‘world check list’ to cancel or refuse to open accounts via what is pretty much an automated process.
The government needs to act on this. That PEPs are included in AML procedures was because of the bribery and blackmailing risk but how common is this and should this be dealt with separately from money laundering?
The government could simply remove PEPs from the AML regulations. Alternatively it could demand that banks apply for permission before being allowed to close or refuse an account purely on PEP grounds.
The banks are out of order on this and incentives need to change - and the AML procedures themselves need re-examining against what they are supposed to achieve.
On Labour in Uxbridge, even though last time their candidate was pretty left and had some "baggage" according to Wikipedia, the swing to Boris was quite low and not a bad result for Labour compared to many places.
Any views on whether the Tories could come third in any of the by-elections today?
Seems a bit unlikely, since part of the story is Lib and Lab votes shuffling around to be efficient.
Labour will be nowhere in Somerton Lib Dems will be nowhere in Uxbridge and Selby
Had Mid Beds happened, there might have been an undignified scramble for who the real challenger was, but that by election isn't going to happen... is it?
That photo....pretty desperate to pin your hopes on one issue. It might actually put off some Tory-inclined people who are concerned about pollution. On the other hand I wonder if the doctors' strike might help the Tories a tiny bit today if voters have been listening to the interviews. The BMA rep speaking to Kay Burley on Sky was a cold fish and not sympathy-inducing. He side-stepped all her remarks about vast salaries and pensions compared to most people and turned it into a discussion about recruitment/retention.
I wonder how much sympathy there is to the Consultants picket line when the majority of them will be earning at least 5 times the average wage when their private earnings are taken into account.
Not much sympathy but that is kind of irrelevant. Wages are not set by sympathy levels or nurses would be paid more than bankers. Supply and demand of qualified people is key, and it is clear that there are not enough doctors willing to work for the current levels of pay.
So little extra sympathy for consultant doctors beyond thanking them for their service, but another failure from a failed government regardless.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
My views aren’t a million miles from yours actually - it is very weird that UK has these territories and I agree about nation states. I was only really making the point that the people who actually live somewhere are often forgotten in the geopolitical games that are played.
I guess, but if their living there was itself an act of colonisation then I don't see it as a particularly impactful consideration. Like, I was fine with lots of white people being kicked out of African nations after the nationalist / independence movements in those countries - the ancestors of colonisers may not be at fault for the oppression people suffered, but they also shouldn't be free to benefit from it and have their (likely skewed by being ancestors of colonists) political views have large sway. In an ideal world in places like the US and Australia land would be given back to native peoples, but that will never happen...
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
Except of course modern Argentina itself only exists as a result of colonisation/recent migration.
Both good posts, which just goes to show there are no easy answers to this stuff.
Poor mad George III wanted to give all the USA west of the Appalachians, to native Americans in 1763. As with slavery, people were not doing stuff they perceived to be OK because different moral climate blah, they knew exactly how wrong it was and did it anyway.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Possession is 99% of the law. It doesn't matter what the islands are called.
Farage’s experience has been shared by thousands. I don’t think he has been singled out and I don’t think this is about banks analysing an account and deciding there is insufficient money.
This situation is to do with anti money laundering rules which started off as a purely money laundering fight (largely drug industry) but over the years have been subject to mission creep; politically exposed people being a part of this creep.
As I understand it there is a global database (world check risk management) run commercially by an agency (Reuters?) which has grown like topsy to include, in an extreme risk-adverse manner, anyone with any passing connection with politics. A cousin of a former politician? – you’re on the list.
The reason for this state of affairs is that banks have to comply with anti money laundering rules and want a low cost, easy method of complying. They have no time or inclination to do actual due diligence on their customers and the easy option is rely on this ‘world check list’ to cancel or refuse to open accounts via what is pretty much an automated process.
The government needs to act on this. That PEPs are included in AML procedures was because of the bribery and blackmailing risk but how common is this and should this be dealt with separately from money laundering? The government could simply remove PEPs from the AML regulations. Alternatively it could demand that banks apply for permission before being allowed to close or refuse an account purely on PEP grounds.
The banks are out of order on this and incentives need to change - and the AML procedures themselves mean re-examining against what they are supposed to achieve.
Refinitiv world-check. Some hits came up on someone with a similar name to myself with a solicitors I'm liaising with. I ran a subject access request on myself and happily was not on their system.
On Labour in Uxbridge, even though last time their candidate was pretty left and had some "baggage" according to Wikipedia, the swing to Boris was quite low and not a bad result for Labour compared to many places.
It's possible Boris had a negative personal vote in Uxbridge.
Coutts require an interview before you open an account so why they shouldn't have the right of self regarding Private institutions to expel you when they choose is a mystery. If Eton Harrow and Groucho's can do it why not Coutts? Not that Groucho's would allow Farage through their doors in the first place.
Why would he go to a place named after Marx?
Sorry if this has been done before but Groucho's:
"Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.”
does feel sane, prescient and practical. Maybe Farage should have spotted that the elite are exceedingly unreliable friends and stuck his weekly fiver in the Barchester Building Society Junior Savers Squirrel Club account.
The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.
The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.
Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.
Note how quick they all are to opine on this but not on the Post Office, a company they actually own 100% and which the judge leading the inquiry set up by the government has said he cannot trust to comply with the inquiry's demands.
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
I think the reason people should care is because these high profile cases reveal the way 'normal' people get treated day in and day out.
I remember at the time of the Andrew Mitchell case where the police lied both about what had been said and then subsequently at a senior level about the meeting held with Mitchell, lots of people I know who didn't in any way like Mitchell or the Tories were looking at the case and saying that this just showed how the police lie day in and day out. The difference of course being that none celebrity/high profile people are not believed and have no recourse. High profile cases reveal the underlying issues that normal people deal with on a daily basis.
Your political sympathies with the victim are skewing your analysis I fear. The evidence that Coutts provided came about as a result of a Data Subject Access Request under U.K. GDPR (ironically an EU Regulation) and the DPA 2018 but will not, necessarily, be all the documents that Coutts hold about him. For example personal data processed for taxation-related purposes is exempt from the right of access. Farage’s personal data that is a record of Coutts intentions in negotiations with him is exempt from the right of access. As are documents that are subject to legal professional privilege and those that contain the personal data of others (although that can be redacted).
Coutts, when they say that there are confidentiality issues that stop them telling the full story, are quite right. Farage, by definition, likely got the most anodyne papers regarding his relationship via a DSAR. There’s all sorts of stuff that Coutts can’t release or, rightly, won’t as it will impinge upon their ability to operate as an organisation that is required to keep confidences. Farage doesn’t even have to release all the information he got, just the material that supports his side. He has a significant advantage in the court of public opinion.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
The Falklanders and Gibraltarians have been there longer than the Poles of Silesia and Pomerania, or the current inhabitants of what used to be the Sudetenland.
What matters in international law is (a) possession, and (b) self-determination.
We're all living on land that used to belong to somebody else.
The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.
The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.
Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.
Farage’s experience has been shared by thousands. I don’t think he has been singled out and I don’t think this is about banks analysing an account and deciding there is insufficient money.
This situation is to do with anti money laundering rules which started off as a purely money laundering fight (largely drug industry) but over the years have been subject to mission creep; politically exposed people being a part of this creep.
As I understand it there is a global database (world check risk management) run commercially by an agency (Reuters?) which has grown like topsy to include, in an extreme risk-adverse manner, anyone with any passing connection with politics. A cousin of a former politician? – you’re on the list.
The reason for this state of affairs is that banks have to comply with anti money laundering rules and want a low cost, easy method of complying. They have no time or inclination to do actual due diligence on their customers and the easy option is rely on this ‘world check list’ to cancel or refuse to open accounts via what is pretty much an automated process.
The government needs to act on this. That PEPs are included in AML procedures was because of the bribery and blackmailing risk but how common is this and should this be dealt with separately from money laundering?
The government could simply remove PEPs from the AML regulations. Alternatively it could demand that banks apply for permission before being allowed to close or refuse an account purely on PEP grounds.
The banks are out of order on this and incentives need to change - and the AML procedures themselves need re-examining against what they are supposed to achieve.
AML needs to do what it says on the tin - check if someone is involved in money laundering. That and criminality should be the only reason a bank ought to be able to refuse custom. They're all intermediaries for the Federal reserve, Threadneedle St and the ECB - which are state or pseudo-state enterprises and the end customer. These are not entirely private institutions like say a bakers.
Always worth remembering that outside of his weirdo fanbase he is wildly unpopular with the general public who by and large cannot stand him. Yet the BBC is in thrall to him and has been for years. He is not an elected politician, nor a party leader - this Coutts nonsense is just the latest chapter in his decades-long grift.
Watching him on Newsnight last night was extraordinary. It was as though this nasty little social climber had finally been found out. Even his chair looked too small. "I've been with the bank for 42 years!". 'Yes Mr Farage but reading through the full report it appears you no longer met their financial requirements'. Said their banking expert who looked like the Head Teacher in 'Matilda'
He went a shade of puce like a shrivalled schoolboy who had just been uncovered cheating. "....But it was POLITICAL' he bleated as we watched him visibly wither in his chair
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
That photo....pretty desperate to pin your hopes on one issue. It might actually put off some Tory-inclined people who are concerned about pollution. On the other hand I wonder if the doctors' strike might help the Tories a tiny bit today if voters have been listening to the interviews. The BMA rep speaking to Kay Burley on Sky was a cold fish and not sympathy-inducing. He side-stepped all her remarks about vast salaries and pensions compared to most people and turned it into a discussion about recruitment/retention.
I wonder how much sympathy there is to the Consultants picket line when the majority of them will be earning at least 5 times the average wage when their private earnings are taken into account.
Not much sympathy but that is kind of irrelevant. Wages are not set by sympathy levels or nurses would be paid more than bankers. Supply and demand of qualified people is key, and it is clear that there are not enough doctors willing to work for the current levels of pay.
So little extra sympathy for consultant doctors beyond thanking them for their service, but another failure from a failed government regardless.
As usual, unanswerable questions. On R4 Today this morning a consultant was pointing out that in Ireland they get paid billions and in UK they scrabble in a queue for gruel.
Broadly developed countries spend roughly the same % of GDP on health (except USA). If we pay medics peanuts compared with all others, then we would have, literally, billions extra a year to spend on health that doesn't go to doctors. But SFAICS we don't.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
I think the reason people should care is because these high profile cases reveal the way 'normal' people get treated day in and day out.
I remember at the time of the Andrew Mitchell case where the police lied both about what had been said and then subsequently at a senior level about the meeting held with Mitchell, lots of people I know who didn't in any way like Mitchell or the Tories were looking at the case and saying that this just showed how the police lie day in and day out. The difference of course being that none celebrity/high profile people are not believed and have no recourse. High profile cases reveal the underlying issues that normal people deal with on a daily basis.
Your political sympathies with the victim are skewing your analysis I fear. The evidence that Coutts provided came about as a result of a Data Subject Access Request under U.K. GDPR (ironically an EU Regulation) and the DPA 2018 but will not, necessarily, be all the documents that Coutts hold about him. For example personal data processed for taxation-related purposes is exempt from the right of access. Farage’s personal data that is a record of Coutts intentions in negotiations with him is exempt from the right of access. As are documents that are subject to legal professional privilege and those that contain the personal data of others (although that can be redacted).
Coutts, when they say that there are confidentiality issues that stop them telling the full story, are quite right. Farage, by definition, likely got the most anodyne papers regarding his relationship via a DSAR. There’s all sorts of stuff that Coutts can’t release or, rightly, won’t as it will impinge upon their ability to operate as an organisation that is required to keep confidences. Farage doesn’t even have to release all the information he got, just the material that supports his side. He has a significant advantage in the court of public opinion.
The problem with this case is that neither side is particularly trustworthy in terms of its public statements, and the information made public is necessarily limited. Hard to draw any useful conclusions from it.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
My views aren’t a million miles from yours actually - it is very weird that UK has these territories and I agree about nation states. I was only really making the point that the people who actually live somewhere are often forgotten in the geopolitical games that are played.
I guess, but if their living there was itself an act of colonisation then I don't see it as a particularly impactful consideration. Like, I was fine with lots of white people being kicked out of African nations after the nationalist / independence movements in those countries - the ancestors of colonisers may not be at fault for the oppression people suffered, but they also shouldn't be free to benefit from it and have their (likely skewed by being ancestors of colonists) political views have large sway. In an ideal world in places like the US and Australia land would be given back to native peoples, but that will never happen...
That would apply the BNP manifesto in the UK though if you only want ancestral people's in nations
That photo....pretty desperate to pin your hopes on one issue. It might actually put off some Tory-inclined people who are concerned about pollution. On the other hand I wonder if the doctors' strike might help the Tories a tiny bit today if voters have been listening to the interviews. The BMA rep speaking to Kay Burley on Sky was a cold fish and not sympathy-inducing. He side-stepped all her remarks about vast salaries and pensions compared to most people and turned it into a discussion about recruitment/retention.
I wonder how much sympathy there is to the Consultants picket line when the majority of them will be earning at least 5 times the average wage when their private earnings are taken into account.
Not much sympathy but that is kind of irrelevant. Wages are not set by sympathy levels or nurses would be paid more than bankers. Supply and demand of qualified people is key, and it is clear that there are not enough doctors willing to work for the current levels of pay.
So little extra sympathy for consultant doctors beyond thanking them for their service, but another failure from a failed government regardless.
As usual, unanswerable questions. On R4 Today this morning a consultant was pointing out that in Ireland they get paid billions and in UK they scrabble in a queue for gruel.
Broadly developed countries spend roughly the same % of GDP on health (except USA). If we pay medics peanuts compared with all others, then we would have, literally, billions extra a year to spend on health that doesn't go to doctors. But SFAICS we don't.
I don't think I am going to get an answer.
Do medics in other countries get the mahoosive pension arrangements ours do ?
On Labour in Uxbridge, even though last time their candidate was pretty left and had some "baggage" according to Wikipedia, the swing to Boris was quite low and not a bad result for Labour compared to many places.
It's possible Boris had a negative personal vote in Uxbridge.
John Randall I found canvassing in Uxbridge was remembered more fondly as a hard working local MP than Boris. Steve Tuckwell like Randall an Uxbridge and Ruislip local not parachuted in like Boris was
Coutts require an interview before you open an account so why they shouldn't have the right of self regarding Private institutions to expel you when they choose is a mystery. If Eton Harrow and Groucho's can do it why not Coutts? Not that Groucho's would allow Farage through their doors in the first place.
Why would he go to a place named after Marx?
Sorry if this has been done before but Groucho's:
"Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.”
does feel sane, prescient and practical. Maybe Farage should have spotted that the elite are exceedingly unreliable friends and stuck his weekly fiver in the Barchester Building Society Junior Savers Squirrel Club account.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
My views aren’t a million miles from yours actually - it is very weird that UK has these territories and I agree about nation states. I was only really making the point that the people who actually live somewhere are often forgotten in the geopolitical games that are played.
I guess, but if their living there was itself an act of colonisation then I don't see it as a particularly impactful consideration. Like, I was fine with lots of white people being kicked out of African nations after the nationalist / independence movements in those countries - the ancestors of colonisers may not be at fault for the oppression people suffered, but they also shouldn't be free to benefit from it and have their (likely skewed by being ancestors of colonists) political views have large sway. In an ideal world in places like the US and Australia land would be given back to native peoples, but that will never happen...
That would apply the BNP manifesto in the UK though if you only want ancestral people's in nations
Always worth remembering that outside of his weirdo fanbase he is wildly unpopular with the general public who by and large cannot stand him. Yet the BBC is in thrall to him and has been for years. He is not an elected politician, nor a party leader - this Coutts nonsense is just the latest chapter in his decades-long grift.
Watching him on Newsnight last night was extraordinary. It was as though this nasty little social climber had finally been found out. Even his chair looked too small. "I've been with the bank for 42 years!". 'Yes Mr Farage but reading through the full report it appears you no longer met their financial requirements'. Said their banking expert who looked like the Head Teacher in 'Matilda'
He went a shade of puce like a shrivalled schoolboy who had just been uncovered cheating. "....But it was POLITICAL' he bleated as we watched him visibly wither in his chair
The BBC at its best!
Brilliantly awful photo of him holding up a hideous debit card here if you can see the DT
Coutts is a joke, I imagine cockney football fans bank there like they wear Burberry. In the days of cheques there was a bit of flex in writing them on Coutts, but even then Couttsians divided very clearly into OK ones who were there because their dad was, and aspirants who went and applied for an account, complete roasters to a man.
Coutts require an interview before you open an account so why they shouldn't have the right of self regarding Private institutions to expel you when they choose is a mystery. If Eton Harrow and Groucho's can do it why not Coutts? Not that Groucho's would allow Farage through their doors in the first place.
Why would he go to a place named after Marx?
Sorry if this has been done before but Groucho's:
"Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.”
does feel sane, prescient and practical. Maybe Farage should have spotted that the elite are exceedingly unreliable friends and stuck his weekly fiver in the Barchester Building Society Junior Savers Squirrel Club account.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
The Falklanders and Gibraltarians have been there longer than the Poles of Silesia and Pomerania, or the current inhabitants of what used to be the Sudetenland.
What matters in international law is (a) possession, and (b) self-determination.
We're all living on land that used to belong to somebody else.
The whole concept of land belonging to anyone seems a little odd. It's always been there, so what gave the initial owners the right to claim it and then sell it to someone else?
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
Except of course modern Argentina itself only exists as a result of colonisation/recent migration.
Yes, but there are native populations still there too. Again, my general apathy to nation states existing doesn't make me feel strongly that Falklands or Gibraltar should belong to other countries, just that they shouldn't belong to the UK.
Argentina eliminated its native population in the 19th century, during "The Conquest of the Pampas."
Always worth remembering that outside of his weirdo fanbase he is wildly unpopular with the general public who by and large cannot stand him. Yet the BBC is in thrall to him and has been for years. He is not an elected politician, nor a party leader - this Coutts nonsense is just the latest chapter in his decades-long grift.
Watching him on Newsnight last night was extraordinary. It was as though this nasty little social climber had finally been found out. Even his chair looked too small. "I've been with the bank for 42 years!". 'Yes Mr Farage but reading through the full report it appears you no longer met their financial requirements'. Said their banking expert who looked like the Head Teacher in 'Matilda'
He went a shade of puce like a shrivalled schoolboy who had just been uncovered cheating. "....But it was POLITICAL' he bleated as we watched him visibly wither in his chair
The BBC at its best!
Brilliantly awful photo of him holding up a hideous debit card here if you can see the DT
Coutts is a joke, I imagine cockney football fans bank there like they wear Burberry. In the days of cheques there was a bit of flex in writing them on Coutts, but even then Couttsians divided very clearly into OK ones who were there because their dad was, and aspirants who went and applied for an account, complete roasters to a man.
When NatWest got hold of Coutts, they tried to use it as a “premier” bank. For a while, in the 90s, you could get an account there, if you earned over £30k. No actual saving/investments required.
An old friend worked there and had the job of clearing out large numbers of customers who were considered to be waste of time. Lots of people who owned about 2% of some very nice assets, with not much income.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
No exact equivalent for Jezza to Kid Starvers Favorability rating but on this YG measure the next London mayor has a better dislike score than Starver and a better net rating than Sir Kid Starver as well as on the same measure being more popular
I fear today could actually be quite a good day for the Tories and a bad one for Labour, because of expectations.
Imagine the following scenario, which is perfectly within the realms of possibility:
- Uxbridge a narrow Labour win (or even Tory hold but seems unlikely), for the various reasons posited downthread and this sense that parts of outer London are just a bit different. Small swing from 2019 picked up by punters as meaning Labour underperforming the polls - Selby & Ainsty a big swing to Labour but Tories manage to hold on just. Even though the swing implies clear Lab majority, the fact they don't win means they fail to meet expectations - Somerton & Frome a clear Lib Dem win, and Labour squeezed hard as third party. The story then becomes about the terrible Labour showing in this seat. Maybe they even lose their deposit
The journalists are all primed and ready to give Starmer a kicking because of the stupid 2-child policy mishap, so a set of results like the above might be all they need to pronounce the end of the honeymoon and put Sunak on the comeback trail.
The second part of that - Sunak on the comeback trail - is rather less credible than Starmer faltering though, and I don't expect voters to greet the Tories with any new surge of enthusiasm any time soon.
Labour could have done with Mid Beds happening because there's the possibility there that they outperform expectations and win, while the Lib Dems don't live up to hype. But it's not to be.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
The Falklanders and Gibraltarians have been there longer than the Poles of Silesia and Pomerania, or the current inhabitants of what used to be the Sudetenland.
What matters in international law is (a) possession, and (b) self-determination.
We're all living on land that used to belong to somebody else.
Not to mention:
1. The Argentinians themselves are hardly indigenous people 2. It's not like a thriving community of Argentinians were displaced to make way for Brits
In fact, other than the fact that the Malvinas are in the same general part of the world as Argentina*, it's not clear why the Argentinian colonizers in Argentina should have any rights over the islands.
* In the way that Birmingham and Marseille are in the same general part of the world.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
The Falklanders and Gibraltarians have been there longer than the Poles of Silesia and Pomerania, or the current inhabitants of what used to be the Sudetenland.
What matters in international law is (a) possession, and (b) self-determination.
We're all living on land that used to belong to somebody else.
The whole concept of land belonging to anyone seems a little odd. It's always been there, so what gave the initial owners the right to claim it and then sell it to someone else?
Three or four basic ways to own land, or well anything.
1) Getting there first. 2) Conquest 3) Purchase. 4) Inheritance/claim
1) Stopped a few thousand years ago for most of the world. 2) Was popular for a good while and still goes on to a limited extent in europe and the middle east. It's mainly 3 and 4 these days, but wasn't always.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
Except of course modern Argentina itself only exists as a result of colonisation/recent migration.
Yes, but there are native populations still there too. Again, my general apathy to nation states existing doesn't make me feel strongly that Falklands or Gibraltar should belong to other countries, just that they shouldn't belong to the UK.
Why? Why is their being administered by the UK (with the express wishes of the inhabitants) any different to them being administered by any other country?
And of course I disagree with you completely about the importance of nation states. The idea that the alternative is some sort of wonderfully egalitarian world democracy is for the birds.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
The Falklanders and Gibraltarians have been there longer than the Poles of Silesia and Pomerania, or the current inhabitants of what used to be the Sudetenland.
What matters in international law is (a) possession, and (b) self-determination.
We're all living on land that used to belong to somebody else.
Not to mention:
1. The Argentinians themselves are hardly indigenous people 2. It's not like a thriving community of Argentinians were displaced to make way for Brits
In fact, other than the fact that the Malvinas are in the same general part of the world as Argentina*, it's not clear why the Argentinian colonizers in Argentina should have any rights over the islands.
* In the way that Birmingham and Marseille are in the same general part of the world.
The Argentinians are a very rum bunch, Italians masquerading as Spanish.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
The Falklanders and Gibraltarians have been there longer than the Poles of Silesia and Pomerania, or the current inhabitants of what used to be the Sudetenland.
What matters in international law is (a) possession, and (b) self-determination.
We're all living on land that used to belong to somebody else.
The whole concept of land belonging to anyone seems a little odd. It's always been there, so what gave the initial owners the right to claim it and then sell it to someone else?
Either "the absence of anyone else" or "a bigger stick", depending.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
It looks to be one of the reasons why Twitter are having to restrict access to their content - it’s scraping and then setting up a shadow of the bird site with some sort of bot, even to the point of matching the urls. Probably won’t last long.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
Except of course modern Argentina itself only exists as a result of colonisation/recent migration.
Yes, but there are native populations still there too. Again, my general apathy to nation states existing doesn't make me feel strongly that Falklands or Gibraltar should belong to other countries, just that they shouldn't belong to the UK.
And how many LLG etc can be bothered to go to the polling station (and remember to take ID). The feeling that the local Tories may be quite likely to bother (or have postal vote) while not enough people really fired up to vote Lab is what has led to me having a nibble on Con.
Nice day in this part of S&A, for what it's worth. Nothing to stop any Cons (or indeed anti-Cons) with time on their hands taking a stroll to the polling booth.
Postal voted a couple of weeks back, so I have no polling station reports.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
The Falklanders and Gibraltarians have been there longer than the Poles of Silesia and Pomerania, or the current inhabitants of what used to be the Sudetenland.
What matters in international law is (a) possession, and (b) self-determination.
We're all living on land that used to belong to somebody else.
Not to mention:
1. The Argentinians themselves are hardly indigenous people 2. It's not like a thriving community of Argentinians were displaced to make way for Brits
In fact, other than the fact that the Malvinas are in the same general part of the world as Argentina*, it's not clear why the Argentinian colonizers in Argentina should have any rights over the islands.
* In the way that Birmingham and Marseille are in the same general part of the world.
The Argentinians are a very rum bunch, Italians masquerading as Spanish.
Comments
In the last reporting period Natwest group rejected approx 25k basic bank account applications and accepted about 25k applications. For comparison Lloyds rejected 20k but accepted 120k.
The govt should be very interested to see why Natwest are rejecting half such applications whilst Lloyds can approve 6/7.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1138492/Basic_Bank_Account_Report_2022.pdf
You're not getting woken up like this in yer grim cashless London squats
I remember at the time of the Andrew Mitchell case where the police lied both about what had been said and then subsequently at a senior level about the meeting held with Mitchell, lots of people I know who didn't in any way like Mitchell or the Tories were looking at the case and saying that this just showed how the police lie day in and day out. The difference of course being that none celebrity/high profile people are not believed and have no recourse. High profile cases reveal the underlying issues that normal people deal with on a daily basis.
On the other hand I wonder if the doctors' strike might help the Tories a tiny bit today if voters have been listening to the interviews. The BMA rep speaking to Kay Burley on Sky was a cold fish and not sympathy-inducing. He side-stepped all her remarks about vast salaries and pensions compared to most people and turned it into a discussion about recruitment/retention.
Tim Shipman
@ShippersUnbound
The hilarious thing about the Coutts affair is that my really posh rich mates regard Coutts as a rather tawdry institution for its celebrity and lottery winner clients. The real poshos bank at Hoare’s
It's one of the reasons that the Lib Dems have a reputation for really spectacular by election swings; if you ramp up from doing next to nothing to throwing the kitchen sink at a seat, you are bound to pick up a lot more votes.
everyone must live in the lands where their ancestors lived, or
ethnic cleansing is fine as long as it is happening to white people.
The litmus test for me is which country the inhabitants want to be part of. If Falklanders want to be part of Britain, it strikes me Britain has a duty to enable this to continue. Ditto Gibraltarians. Ditto the Northern Irish, or people from the Isle of Wight, or wherever. Nationalities don't fit into neat little geographical boxes.
This situation is to do with anti money laundering rules which started off as a purely money laundering fight (largely drug industry) but over the years have been subject to mission creep; politically exposed people being a part of this creep.
As I understand it there is a global database (world check risk management) run commercially by an agency (Reuters?) which has grown like topsy to include, in an extreme risk-adverse manner, anyone with any passing connection with politics. A cousin of a former politician? – you’re on the list.
The reason for this state of affairs is that banks have to comply with anti money laundering rules and want a low cost, easy method of complying. They have no time or inclination to do actual due diligence on their customers and the easy option is rely on this ‘world check list’ to cancel or refuse to open accounts via what is pretty much an automated process.
The government needs to act on this. That PEPs are included in AML procedures was because of the bribery and blackmailing risk but how common is this and should this be dealt with separately from money laundering?
The government could simply remove PEPs from the AML regulations. Alternatively it could demand that banks apply for permission before being allowed to close or refuse an account purely on PEP grounds.
The banks are out of order on this and incentives need to change - and the AML procedures themselves need re-examining against what they are supposed to achieve.
Labour will be nowhere in Somerton
Lib Dems will be nowhere in Uxbridge and Selby
Had Mid Beds happened, there might have been an undignified scramble for who the real challenger was, but that by election isn't going to happen... is it?
So little extra sympathy for consultant doctors beyond thanking them for their service, but another failure from a failed government regardless.
"Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.”
does feel sane, prescient and practical. Maybe Farage should have spotted that the elite are exceedingly unreliable friends and stuck his weekly fiver in the Barchester Building Society Junior Savers Squirrel Club account.
GDPR (ironically an EU Regulation) and the DPA 2018 but will not, necessarily, be all the documents that Coutts hold about him. For example personal data processed for taxation-related purposes is exempt from the right of access. Farage’s personal data that is a record of Coutts intentions in negotiations with him is exempt from the right of access. As are documents that are subject to legal professional privilege and those that contain the personal data of others (although that can be redacted).
Coutts, when they say that there are confidentiality issues that stop them telling the full story, are quite right. Farage, by definition, likely got the most anodyne papers regarding his relationship via a DSAR. There’s all sorts of stuff that Coutts can’t release or, rightly, won’t as it will impinge upon their ability to operate as an organisation that is required to keep confidences. Farage doesn’t even have to release all the information he got, just the material that supports his side. He has a significant advantage in the court of public opinion.
What matters in international law is (a) possession, and (b) self-determination.
We're all living on land that used to belong to somebody else.
SKS net favourability drops to -22 (-8)
✅ Favourable: 32% (-4)
❌ Unfavourable: 54% (+4)
This gives Starver his worst rating in a monthly average of YouGov polls since mid-2022.
15 mins walk from House of Commons....
He went a shade of puce like a shrivalled schoolboy who had just been uncovered cheating. "....But it was POLITICAL' he bleated as we watched him visibly wither in his chair
The BBC at its best!
https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1681738586981298176
And here's Hadley Freeman's response:
https://twitter.com/HadleyFreeman/status/1681745979341512710
Broadly developed countries spend roughly the same % of GDP on health (except USA). If we pay medics peanuts compared with all others, then we would have, literally, billions extra a year to spend on health that doesn't go to doctors. But SFAICS we don't.
I don't think I am going to get an answer.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/20/dogs-attacks-pitbulls-bred-for-fighting-britain/
Hard to draw any useful conclusions from it.
They've got away with it by fully integrating its governance with metropolitan France proper post WWII.
So, maybe we should do the same for the Falklands and Gibraltar.
https://twitter.com/Dahlialithwick/status/1681761138906677249
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/19/dame-alison-rose-nigel-farage-coutts-banks-scandal/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
Coutts is a joke, I imagine cockney football fans bank there like they wear Burberry. In the days of cheques there was a bit of flex in writing them on Coutts, but even then Couttsians divided very clearly into OK ones who were there because their dad was, and aspirants who went and applied for an account, complete roasters to a man.
An old friend worked there and had the job of clearing out large numbers of customers who were considered to be waste of time. Lots of people who owned about 2% of some very nice assets, with not much income.
There's lots of instances if nitter.net isn't working.
https://github.com/zedeus/nitter
Substitute nitter.net for twitter.com and everyone can read it.
As a side benefit it probably annoys Elon.
Public Figure
Jeremy Corbyn
header icon
Fame (have heard of)
95%
header icon
Popularity (liked by)
30%
header icon
Disliked by
48%
header icon
Neutral
17%
No exact equivalent for Jezza to Kid Starvers Favorability rating but on this YG measure the next London mayor has a better dislike score than Starver and a better net rating than Sir Kid Starver as well as on the same measure being more popular
Imagine the following scenario, which is perfectly within the realms of possibility:
- Uxbridge a narrow Labour win (or even Tory hold but seems unlikely), for the various reasons posited downthread and this sense that parts of outer London are just a bit different. Small swing from 2019 picked up by punters as meaning Labour underperforming the polls
- Selby & Ainsty a big swing to Labour but Tories manage to hold on just. Even though the swing implies clear Lab majority, the fact they don't win means they fail to meet expectations
- Somerton & Frome a clear Lib Dem win, and Labour squeezed hard as third party. The story then becomes about the terrible Labour showing in this seat. Maybe they even lose their deposit
The journalists are all primed and ready to give Starmer a kicking because of the stupid 2-child policy mishap, so a set of results like the above might be all they need to pronounce the end of the honeymoon and put Sunak on the comeback trail.
The second part of that - Sunak on the comeback trail - is rather less credible than Starmer faltering though, and I don't expect voters to greet the Tories with any new surge of enthusiasm any time soon.
Labour could have done with Mid Beds happening because there's the possibility there that they outperform expectations and win, while the Lib Dems don't live up to hype. But it's not to be.
1. The Argentinians themselves are hardly indigenous people
2. It's not like a thriving community of Argentinians were displaced to make way for Brits
In fact, other than the fact that the Malvinas are in the same general part of the world as Argentina*, it's not clear why the Argentinian colonizers in Argentina should have any rights over the islands.
* In the way that Birmingham and Marseille are in the same general part of the world.
1) Getting there first.
2) Conquest
3) Purchase.
4) Inheritance/claim
1) Stopped a few thousand years ago for most of the world. 2) Was popular for a good while and still goes on to a limited extent in europe and the middle east.
It's mainly 3 and 4 these days, but wasn't always.
And of course I disagree with you completely about the importance of nation states. The idea that the alternative is some sort of wonderfully egalitarian world democracy is for the birds.
Selby depends how many Tories stay at home IMO
Ben Bradshaw @BenPBradshaw
Replying to @soniasodha @DAaronovitch
But it’a the company some of you keep, Sonia & most radical left wing feminists are trans-inclusive, plus, what exactly is “gender ideology”? Is it an “ideology” that trans & non-binary people exist?
Jul 19, 2023 · 6:51 PM UTC
The Hadley Freeman tweet you refer to was here
Hadley Freeman @HadleyFreeman
Replying to @BenPBradshaw @soniasodha @DAaronovitch
Oh, and here’s the company you keep, Ben. How’s that look to you? https://unherd.com/thepost/calls-for-violence-in-the-trans-debate-only-come-from-one-side/ "Calls for violence in the trans debate only come from one side" On Saturday, a convicted criminal got up in front of a cheering crowd in central London and publicly incited violence against women. “If you see a terf, punch them in the fucking face,” he declared...
Jul 19, 2023 · 7:21 PM UTC
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
Hadley Freeman @HadleyFreeman
Replying to @BenPBradshaw @soniasodha @DAaronovitch
Gender ideology, Ben, is the belief a woman is a feeling as opposed to a material reality. Feminists like myself accept that people who believe they have a gender identity exist, we just don’t share their belief system, just as we don’t believe in the existence of souls or angels
Jul 19, 2023 · 7:17 PM UTC
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k
Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k
Commute 7k
Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
Nice day in this part of S&A, for what it's worth. Nothing to stop any Cons (or indeed anti-Cons) with time on their hands taking a stroll to the polling booth.
Postal voted a couple of weeks back, so I have no polling station reports.