With the IMF now giving the German Parliament every reason to vote down the deal (the assumed Greek economic growth numbers are just fanciful), the EU deal on Greece is looking like a complete buggers muddle....
The IMF is doing no more than stating the blindingly obvious but nevertheless their timing is...interesting.
If it is accepted that at least £200bn of past loans to Greece from the other Member States are going to have to be written off then selling yet another batch of loans so they can "pay back" token amounts of existing debt really is a hard sell.
Greece is fundamentally broken and what is clear from the IMF is that Syriza have simply added to the damage with every step they took since elected whilst failing to address any of the problems. The reform part of the EU package makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is pretending it is going to work without massive debt forgiveness at the same time. The IMF are spot on about that.
I've always found it very puzzling that at every stage of the Euro crisis the IMF has been arguing for debt relief and then being pilloried for the ECB's refusal to countenance it. OK, so in the Irish crisis it was Timothy Geithner who voted it down rather than whatever random person was running the ECB. But at every stage the IMF has urged restructuring, been ignored and then been blamed for being ignored.
Is it because we find it a convenient bogeyman, or is there some added level of complexity to this relationship?
My guess would be that the IMF are interested in the economics whilst the ECB and EZ members are only interested in the politics. Since the losses of this disaster were once again nationalised by the earlier bail outs which let private sector lenders off the hook yet again this is taxpayers' money we are talking about.
Pretending that is coming back some time maybe is a lot more politically convenient than simply writing it off. As Robert has pointed out on several occasions the practical differences are more modest as defer and pretend reach absurd levels.
What the IMF are pointing out is that maintaining such pretences distorts the figures and requires absurd assumptions such as 3.5% primary surpluses maintained over decades. Even if such a policy were possible it would inflict enormous and unnecessary economic damage on Greece making growth almost impossible and severely restricting credit.
"It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby."
There's some truth in that, so don't expect a logical argument. As Wilde nearly said .... "The uneducated in full pursuit of the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."
'Y Doethur' is actually a title - it means, 'the Doctor'. I am one of those sad overqualified geeks with a PhD in History on a very random obscure subject (most PhDs are). Alas, I do not have a TARDIS though to go back in time and settle all arguments about Hannibal
Mr. Observer, I disagree. If Labour win an election, they'll have almost certainly won England. Removing English votes for English laws would cause a furore (although they might try and bugger up England with their despicable fiefdoms plan, I suppose).
Once again, an English Parliament is the way to go.
EV4EL, as envisaged by the Tories, would often lead to English laws that most voters in England do not want.
What evidence do you have for that? My Facebook feed was full of anti fox hunting stuff the last few days - but I rather doubt they voted Tory or Ukip.
Because the EV4EL proposals put forward give a veto to MPs elected by a minority of English voters.
At the risk of starting another voting reform argument, Labour had 13 years to change the system. They didn't. So get over it.
Get over what? As soon as Labour get back in - or the Tories lose their overall majority - you can be certain that EV4EL measures imposed by the Tories will be overturned. Such is the nature of constitutional politics in the UK. It's ridiculous. I have always supported PR and a constitutional convention. It has nothing to do with Labour.
What would be really interesting of course is if, under EV4EL, the Tories had a majority in England but Labour had an overall majority including Wales (and Scotland). It may not seem likely at the moment, but it has happened on three occasions in the last 65 years. So - who would form the government? That would cause a real crisis and is one clear reason why EV4EL is a very bad idea.
If you cannot read the comments, and put the correct construction on them, there seems little point in engaging with you. I was criticising the anti-hunting lobby's lack of logic and its dishonesty. You appear to be willing to go with that, which is your loss. There are many definitions of insanity - for example, doing the same thing twice in the hope of a different result - but only lunacy would disqualify someone from voting. I will say, however, that most people who oppose hunting cringe as much as I do at the behaviour of the vocal anti-hunting lobby. That was the thrust of my remark. I do hope that is now clear.
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
I cannot "put the correct construction" on comments because there is no single correct construction to be placed on any comment (including this one). Indeed, it is to promote this truth that I come here, as much as for any other reason.
And I have at least got you to admit that you like the idea of jailing your political opponents, which is something.
No they are not political opponents. They are terrorists. People who go around threatening and attacking other people to try and prevent them going about their lawful occasions. In fact, they have caused more destruction and injury in this country than any Islamist movement, although I will admit that I am not aware of any recent murders.
That is the last reply you will get from me until you engage with the facts rather than with spiteful abuse. It may be difficult for you, but I assure you you will find it worthwhile in the end.
Good day.
Excellent flouncing there. Definitely at least an 8.
A 10 presumably includes a soon-forgotten promise never to return.
No, a 10 require defying OGH directly, refusing to follow his rules, then complaining periodically to your handful of followers about the subsequent banning on your own modest blog.....
I wonder how people would react if a bunch of kids in red hoodies on bikes, for 'sport' chased urban foxes though the suburbs with a pack of bull terriers.
If it kept them off the street corners drinking and fighting, then you would find less opposition than you think ;-) It could help tackle the looming obesity crisis. Teach them the values of teamwork and respect too*
So - who would form the government? That would cause a real crisis and is one clear reason why EV4EL is a very bad idea.
Umm, that's the whole point...
Labour would form the government, but could not use their Scottish MPs to force through legislation that only affected England, like foxhunting for example
"It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby."
There's some truth in that, so don't expect a logical argument. As Wilde nearly said .... "The uneducated in full pursuit of the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."
'Y Doethur' is actually a title - it means, 'the Doctor'. I am one of those sad overqualified geeks with a PhD in History on a very random obscure subject (most PhDs are). Alas, I do not have a TARDIS though to go back in time and settle all arguments about Hannibal
I think I may actually have met him once. If he is the person I think he is, then when you meet him he's actually a really nice guy when you talk to him about ordinary subjects. He played host to me when I was giving a paper at his university and we got on really well.
The more powers that are devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI, then the less viable their MPs become. Perhaps they should be part-timers and their remuneration and expenses be directly proportional to that fact.
So - who would form the government? That would cause a real crisis and is one clear reason why EV4EL is a very bad idea.
Umm, that's the whole point...
Labour would form the government, but could not use their Scottish MPs to force through legislation that only affected England, like foxhunting for example
In which case - they couldn't govern. So would we need a second government for England formed of the Opposition? The mind boggles at the complexity of the situation.
That's why I agree with MD - on the whole, and while recognizing its drawbacks as an idea, an English Parliament is probably the best option.
...the zoomers start getting personal, they know they have lost the argument.
Again.
There's no hypocrite like a PB Tory hypocrite. By your own measure you appear to have lost the argument, plus another incremental increase in the perception of Tory disadvantage. Good work.
I don't know anyone who isn't banned by him on Twitter - I'd love to know how many there are on his BlackList. That I never see his tweets just shows that he's now restricted to a very robust approval echo chamber.
I think he's got as many as Owen Jones and that's going some on the Thin Skin Stakes.
"It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby."
There's some truth in that, so don't expect a logical argument. As Wilde nearly said .... "The uneducated in full pursuit of the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."
'Y Doethur' is actually a title - it means, 'the Doctor'. I am one of those sad overqualified geeks with a PhD in History on a very random obscure subject (most PhDs are). Alas, I do not have a TARDIS though to go back in time and settle all arguments about Hannibal
I think I may actually have met him once. If he is the person I think he is, then when you meet him he's actually a really nice guy when you talk to him about ordinary subjects. He played host to me when I was giving a paper at his university and we got on really well.
If you cannot read the comments, and put the correct construction on them, there seems little point in engaging with you. I was criticising the anti-hunting lobby's lack of logic and its dishonesty. You appear to be willing to go with that, which is your loss. There are many definitions of insanity - for example, doing the same thing twice in the hope of a different result - but only lunacy would disqualify someone from voting. I will say, however, that most people who oppose hunting cringe as much as I do at the behaviour of the vocal anti-hunting lobby. That was the thrust of my remark. I do hope that is now clear.
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
I cannot "put the correct construction" on comments because there is no single correct construction to be placed on any comment (including this one). Indeed, it is to promote this truth that I come here, as much as for any other reason.
And I have at least got you to admit that you like the idea of jailing your political opponents, which is something.
No they are not political opponents. They are terrorists. People who go around threatening and attacking other people to try and prevent them going about their lawful occasions. In fact, they have caused more destruction and injury in this country than any Islamist movement, although I will admit that I am not aware of any recent murders.
That is the last reply you will get from me until you engage with the facts rather than with spiteful abuse. It may be difficult for you, but I assure you you will find it worthwhile in the end.
Good day.
Excellent flouncing there. Definitely at least an 8.
A 10 presumably includes a soon-forgotten promise never to return.
No, a 10 require defying OGH directly, refusing to follow his rules, then complaining periodically to your handful of followers about the subsequent banning on your own modest blog.....
You lot are saying 8 was too high aren't you? But I am feeling generous.
I don't know anyone who isn't banned by him on Twitter - I'd love to know how many there are on his BlackList. That I never see his tweets just shows that he's now restricted to a very robust approval echo chamber.
I think he's got as many as Owen Jones and that's going some on the Thin Skin Stakes.
"It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby."
There's some truth in that, so don't expect a logical argument. As Wilde nearly said .... "The uneducated in full pursuit of the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."
'Y Doethur' is actually a title - it means, 'the Doctor'. I am one of those sad overqualified geeks with a PhD in History on a very random obscure subject (most PhDs are). Alas, I do not have a TARDIS though to go back in time and settle all arguments about Hannibal
I think I may actually have met him once. If he is the person I think he is, then when you meet him he's actually a really nice guy when you talk to him about ordinary subjects. He played host to me when I was giving a paper at his university and we got on really well.
Well, maybe it was a different Eoin Clarke although they look pretty similar. Or maybe he's the latter-day Ian Paisley - charming and affable in private, a raving demagogue in public.
Not that he would thank me for that comparison, of course!
Having a doctorate means knowing everything there is to know about nothing in particular. Mine was a long time ago and in science, so even that nothing in particular is probably out of date now. Surely, in history, even that nothing was always a matter of opinion.
Mr. Doethur, I wonder if there's a realistic prospect of the Greeks saying no. I'd guess not, Tsipras seems to be seeing it's horrendous but there's no alternative.
The question is, without the IMF is there still a deal to be voted on? If there is nothing on the table - horrendous or not - there seems little point accepting it?
I'm getting a bit uneasy about my friends in Greece, particularly those who swapped a holiday in Tunisia for a holiday in Corfu...
Tell us where they are planning to get next year. Please, as a public service.
My guess would be that the IMF are interested in the economics whilst the ECB and EZ members are only interested in the politics. Since the losses of this disaster were once again nationalised by the earlier bail outs which let private sector lenders off the hook yet again this is taxpayers' money we are talking about.
Pretending that is coming back some time maybe is a lot more politically convenient than simply writing it off. As Robert has pointed out on several occasions the practical differences are more modest as defer and pretend reach absurd levels.
What the IMF are pointing out is that maintaining such pretences distorts the figures and requires absurd assumptions such as 3.5% primary surpluses maintained over decades. Even if such a policy were possible it would inflict enormous and unnecessary economic damage on Greece making growth almost impossible and severely restricting credit.
That sounds plausible, thanks. Has to be said though that this doesn't even look like good politics to me. Signing up a major international organisation to a bailout without, y'know, asking them first whether they'd stand for a few quid is very unwise, to say the least. And now of course they have responded on the day of the vote when it will do most damage to the ECB's credibility - such as they still have.
Mr. Doethur, I wonder if there's a realistic prospect of the Greeks saying no. I'd guess not, Tsipras seems to be seeing it's horrendous but there's no alternative.
The question is, without the IMF is there still a deal to be voted on? If there is nothing on the table - horrendous or not - there seems little point accepting it?
I'm getting a bit uneasy about my friends in Greece, particularly those who swapped a holiday in Tunisia for a holiday in Corfu...
Tell us where they are planning to get next year. Please, as a public service.
I would, if I knew. Indeed, I am planning to ask in order to plan my own holiday, very carefully, elsewhere...
Mr. Doethur, I wonder if there's a realistic prospect of the Greeks saying no. I'd guess not, Tsipras seems to be seeing it's horrendous but there's no alternative.
The question is, without the IMF is there still a deal to be voted on? If there is nothing on the table - horrendous or not - there seems little point accepting it?
I'm getting a bit uneasy about my friends in Greece, particularly those who swapped a holiday in Tunisia for a holiday in Corfu...
Tell us where they are planning to get next year. Please, as a public service.
If you cannot read the comments, and put the correct construction on them, there seems little point in engaging with you. I was criticising the anti-hunting lobby's lack of logic and its dishonesty. You appear to be willing to go with that, which is your loss. There are many definitions of insanity - for example, doing the same thing twice in the hope of a different result - but only lunacy would disqualify someone from voting. I will say, however, that most people who oppose hunting cringe as much as I do at the behaviour of the vocal anti-hunting lobby. That was the thrust of my remark. I do hope that is now clear.
I have incidentally often thought that any member of the ALF should be disqualified from voting, but that could easily be done by prosecuting them under the Terrorism Act and putting them in prison for several years.
I cannot "put the correct construction" on comments because there is no single correct construction to be placed on any comment (including this one). Indeed, it is to promote this truth that I come here, as much as for any other reason.
And I have at least got you to admit that you like the idea of jailing your political opponents, which is something.
No they are not political opponents. They are terrorists. People who go around threatening and attacking other people to try and prevent them going about their lawful occasions. In fact, they have caused more destruction and injury in this country than any Islamist movement, although I will admit that I am not aware of any recent murders.
That is the last reply you will get from me until you engage with the facts rather than with spiteful abuse. It may be difficult for you, but I assure you you will find it worthwhile in the end.
Good day.
Excellent flouncing there. Definitely at least an 8.
A 10 presumably includes a soon-forgotten promise never to return.
No, a 10 require defying OGH directly, refusing to follow his rules, then complaining periodically to your handful of followers about the subsequent banning on your own modest blog.....
You lot are saying 8 was too high aren't you? But I am feeling generous.
It was an 8 by recent standards - but there have been some heroic flounces in the past - I presume its on a logarithmic scale?
I have posted them here, just in case Dr Eoin Clarke decides to drain the swamp into which he has sunk his credibility. They may go the same way as the 60 or so articles he has deleted after admitting that they were “defamatory”.
This is a long piece; if you want a shorter read, the Virgin Care Apology (Exhibit 2) is a corker. Dr Eoin repeats all the baroque things he spent months saying, and declares one by one that they are all false.
Anyone not paying careful attention may have missed the “bonus apology” to the Broxtowe MP and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Anna Soubry MP, in which Dr Eoin Clarke agreed to pay her legal fees.
There’s still no end of libel and defamation dripping from Dr Eoin Clarke’s blog, and he may have future apologies to make.
It seems that Dr Eoin Clarke made a fresh start on December 3rd, when he took out a new domain greenbenchesuk.com, which I’d speculate is related to instructions from a whole phalanx of Defamation Lawyers to stop publicising defamation.
I don't know anyone who isn't banned by him on Twitter - I'd love to know how many there are on his BlackList. That I never snipsee his tweets just shows that he's now restricted to a very robust approval echo chamber.
I think he's got as many as Owen Jones and that's going some on the Thin Skin Stakes.
"It's that sort of spiteful childishness, allied to a complete lack of logic, that has infected the anti-hunting lobby."
There's some truth in that, so don't expect a logical argument. As Wilde nearly said .... "The uneducated in full pursuit of the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."
'Y Doethur' is actually a title - it means, 'the Doctor'. I am one of those sad overqualified geeks with a PhD in History on a very random obscure subject (most PhDs are). Alas, I do not have a TARDIS though to go back in time and settle all arguments about Hannibal
snip
Well, maybe it was a different Eoin Clarke although they look pretty similar. Or maybe he's the latter-day Ian Paisley - charming and affable in private, a raving demagogue in public.
Not that he would thank me for that comparison, of course!
Mr. Doethur, I wonder if there's a realistic prospect of the Greeks saying no. I'd guess not, Tsipras seems to be seeing it's horrendous but there's no alternative.
The question is, without the IMF is there still a deal to be voted on? If there is nothing on the table - horrendous or not - there seems little point accepting it?
I'm getting a bit uneasy about my friends in Greece, particularly those who swapped a holiday in Tunisia for a holiday in Corfu...
Tell us where they are planning to get next year. Please, as a public service.
Just stay in the UK and buy extra umbrellas - but do not stay in/visit Scotland - too many angry (g)nats.
Having a doctorate means knowing everything there is to know about nothing in particular. Mine was a long time ago and in science, so even that nothing in particular is probably out of date now. Surely, in history, even that nothing was always a matter of opinion.
So much for education.
That's why I love it, of course. 100,000 words to say what I think about anything I like? Bring it on!
Sad though it is, I'm tempted to agree with you about the value of PhDs. It's really difficult to get a school job with one, because everyone sees me as horribly overqualified. OK, so I got lucky with my current post but it was at the 16th interview while all my friends with BAs were placed after about 4. As for lecturing jobs, there aren't any. Sometimes I've thought I would have been better to stick with my MA, like a friend of mine who is a year younger than me and light years ahead in career terms.
But there - it's not just about monetary value and I really did enjoy myself while doing it. Since I earned the money to pay for it myself, I don't feel that I've wasted anyone or anything by doing so either. Maybe if I had been funded, I would feel differently.
My guess would be that the IMF are interested in the economics whilst the ECB and EZ members are only interested in the politics. Since the losses of this disaster were once again nationalised by the earlier bail outs which let private sector lenders off the hook yet again this is taxpayers' money we are talking about.
Pretending that is coming back some time maybe is a lot more politically convenient than simply writing it off. As Robert has pointed out on several occasions the practical differences are more modest as defer and pretend reach absurd levels.
What the IMF are pointing out is that maintaining such pretences distorts the figures and requires absurd assumptions such as 3.5% primary surpluses maintained over decades. Even if such a policy were possible it would inflict enormous and unnecessary economic damage on Greece making growth almost impossible and severely restricting credit.
That sounds plausible, thanks. Has to be said though that this doesn't even look like good politics to me. Signing up a major international organisation to a bailout without, y'know, asking them first whether they'd stand for a few quid is very unwise, to say the least. And now of course they have responded on the day of the vote when it will do most damage to the ECB's credibility - such as they still have.
The IMF have always had very strict rules about haircuts. Basically, they apply to everyone else and not to them. If Greece does get this bailout I am pretty certain that paying the arrears due to the IMF will be a first draw on the money. I am also sure that they are ticked off that this happened at all and that everyone pretended it was ok and not a default event on all their other debt. That weakens the hand of the IMF going forward in other crises and they will not be pleased.
Their argument is that governments would not lend them the money to help if there was any risk of it being lost.
So when they talk of debt forgiveness they are talking about the ECB and the other EU funds that Greece has drawn on, not them.
So when they talk of debt forgiveness they are talking about the ECB and the other EU funds that Greece has drawn on, not them.
Which is fair enough, the IMF didn't make the idiotic investment decisions, the French and German banks did, the Eurozone in it's wisdom decided to bail them out by taking all their crap Greek bonds in as collateral for nice shiny ECB loans. Now they are finding out that all those bonds are effectively worthless and have the effrontery to try and pass it all on to the IMF.
The IMFs hands are not clean of course because they allowed that well known impartial player in EU politics Mr DSK to become their president, and he got them going trying to save currencies and banks rather than countries, which is against the rules.
It is genuinely sad that Cameron cannot spot that when he says "“What we are proposing is relatively modest, it really is that you should not be able to legislate in the United Kingdom parliament against the wishes of English MPs.” that he does not realise that substituting "Scotland" for "England" in that statement highlights the nonsense of one Tory outvoting 58 other Scotland MPs
It is genuinely sad that Cameron cannot spot that when he says "“What we are proposing is relatively modest, it really is that you should not be able to legislate in the United Kingdom parliament against the wishes of English MPs.” that he does not realise that substituting "Scotland" for "England" in that statement highlights the nonsense of one Tory outvoting 58 other Scotland MPs
Have you never heard of devolution? Your accusation is totally crass. All scottish MPs should not vote on English matters when they cannot vote on the same matter in Scotland.
Comments
Pretending that is coming back some time maybe is a lot more politically convenient than simply writing it off. As Robert has pointed out on several occasions the practical differences are more modest as defer and pretend reach absurd levels.
What the IMF are pointing out is that maintaining such pretences distorts the figures and requires absurd assumptions such as 3.5% primary surpluses maintained over decades. Even if such a policy were possible it would inflict enormous and unnecessary economic damage on Greece making growth almost impossible and severely restricting credit.
Once again, an English Parliament is the way to go.
Slightly edited.
And quoting extensively - using technicolour Comic Sans
It could help tackle the looming obesity crisis.
Teach them the values of teamwork and respect too*
*ok, that's a bit of a stretch.
Labour would form the government, but could not use their Scottish MPs to force through legislation that only affected England, like foxhunting for example
That's why I agree with MD - on the whole, and while recognizing its drawbacks as an idea, an English Parliament is probably the best option.
By your own measure you appear to have lost the argument, plus another incremental increase in the perception of Tory disadvantage. Good work.
I think he's got as many as Owen Jones and that's going some on the Thin Skin Stakes.
Not that he would thank me for that comparison, of course!
Having a doctorate means knowing everything there is to know about nothing in particular. Mine was a long time ago and in science, so even that nothing in particular is probably out of date now. Surely, in history, even that nothing was always a matter of opinion.
So much for education.
Go grab a coffee and some toast... deep breaths.
He's got quite a compendium. This only includes those up to 2013... http://annaraccoon.com/2013/01/13/the-many-apologies-of-dr-eoin-clarke-phd-plnkr-bf/ Ms Raccoon is a former legal lady herself.
Sad though it is, I'm tempted to agree with you about the value of PhDs. It's really difficult to get a school job with one, because everyone sees me as horribly overqualified. OK, so I got lucky with my current post but it was at the 16th interview while all my friends with BAs were placed after about 4. As for lecturing jobs, there aren't any. Sometimes I've thought I would have been better to stick with my MA, like a friend of mine who is a year younger than me and light years ahead in career terms.
But there - it's not just about monetary value and I really did enjoy myself while doing it. Since I earned the money to pay for it myself, I don't feel that I've wasted anyone or anything by doing so either. Maybe if I had been funded, I would feel differently.
Their argument is that governments would not lend them the money to help if there was any risk of it being lost.
So when they talk of debt forgiveness they are talking about the ECB and the other EU funds that Greece has drawn on, not them.
The IMFs hands are not clean of course because they allowed that well known impartial player in EU politics Mr DSK to become their president, and he got them going trying to save currencies and banks rather than countries, which is against the rules.
It is genuinely sad that Cameron cannot spot that when he says "“What we are proposing is relatively modest, it really is that you should not be able to legislate in the United Kingdom parliament against the wishes of English MPs.” that he does not realise that substituting "Scotland" for "England" in that statement highlights the nonsense of one Tory outvoting 58 other Scotland MPs