This should be a good test of my theory that elections are increasingly about race rather than class.
Let's look at the following:- Labour = Muslim vote; UKIP = white working class vote, Tories = white middle-class (and aspirational) vote, LibDems = non-white, non-Muslim vote.
Does anyone have any census or other data for these categories?
Obviously I don't have any evidence either way but I do hope that in this case you are wrong. It would be a very sad thing for electoral choices to come down to something as stark as racial differences.
The evidence gathered in post-election studies tends to support a broad hypothesis of division by identity.
Muslim and Afro-Caribbean votes overwhelmingly end up in Labour columns.
Hindu and Sikh votes are more evenly distributed.
White votes increasingly tend towards non-Labour.
I don't think there is much, if any , resonance in the idea that non-Muslim ethnic minorities vote Lib Dem. The same will apply with the Greens. These are (were) largely a certain type of white, middle class vote at their core plus students.
We're just at the start of a Conservative majority, it's been a safe Labour seat for quite some time, and whilst Corbyn's madder than a mongoose there's no risk of a Labour win here putting him anywhere near the levers of power.
You would think so, but then the same arguments would have held true for Heywood & Middleton. It is a tougher ask than that election, for the reasons already given but then while UKIP are off their peak, so are Labour.
What is a measure of the time - and of how much things have changed in six years or so - is the current level of expectations.
It ought to be nigh-on unthinkable for Labour to lose a safe seat in opposition. That it's even being considered as a realistic possibility is proof of how weakened Labour's support is in its sometime heartlands. Yes, the SNP achieved similar gains in the past (Glasgow Govan and all that), leaving aside the post-2010 era, but not in England until very recently.
Similarly, when Labour did lose, it was to the Lib Dems; the natural party of by-elections: Leicester South and Birmingham Hodge Hill and all that. This time, the Lib Dems, relegated to the also-rans, will do very well to hold their deposit - and no-one expects anything else.
For the Conservatives, this would never have been other than a defeat waiting to happen. To finish behind UKIP would, however, have been an embarrassment. Now, there's the same strain of support from some Blue supporters for them that there once was for the Lib Dems from Labourites in safe Con seats.
And all this confirms UKIP's break into the top tier, if the lower end of it. No longer a bunch of cranks and eccentrics, they're seen as a serious player. That comes with its own dangers of under-delivery. Pre-2010, for UKIP to score a few thousand votes and finish third was a good result; now, they're expected to push Labour close.
Why does everyone think that the asian vote will automatically vote Lab?
If I was a recent immigrant perhaps, but any older generation I would vote Cons to aspire or UKIP to haul up the ladder behind me.
I don't think anyone has trouble finding immigrants of all flavours being at least as much and often more anti-new-immigrant than anyone else.
Plus all this new (small "n") Lab class war stuff means nothing to immigrants as indeed it means nothing to anyone sensible.
Asian voters are becoming more likely to vote Conservative. That's bad news for Labour of course in this seat.
When have Hindi voters ever NOT been Tories? As far as I can see that cohort has always been strongly Tory. I'd expect most Sikhs are Tories too although this may not always have been the case.
Whenever I come across a cheerful young European hard at work in our country, as I seem to do fairly frequently, I feel guilty about flirting with OUT.
Why does everyone think that the asian vote will automatically vote Lab?
If I was a recent immigrant perhaps, but any older generation I would vote Cons to aspire or UKIP to haul up the ladder behind me.
I don't think anyone has trouble finding immigrants of all flavours being at least as much and often more anti-new-immigrant than anyone else.
Plus all this new (small "n") Lab class war stuff means nothing to immigrants as indeed it means nothing to anyone sensible.
Asian voters are becoming more likely to vote Conservative. That's bad news for Labour of course in this seat.
When have Hindi voters ever NOT been Tories? As far as I can see that cohort has always been strongly Tory. I'd expect most Sikhs are Tories too although this may not always have been the case.
The majority of Hindu/Sikh voters have been Labour, but are trending away.
The packaging of ethnic minorities/migrants/race as one group defined by skin colour has increasingly been dismantled post 9/11 and also by EU expansion.
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I think you're exaggerating with "most". The vast bulk of CDOs and CDSs were US mortgage related and either stayed in the US or went to specialist funds that were created for the express purpose of investing in them. (There's a certain UK based hedge fund who's biggest "product" was simply a repository for synthethic debt instruments, which was then levered up to give fabulous and "consistent" returns.)
It would be more accurate to say that the German banks owned tonnes of peripheral debt, and then your paragraph would be quite accurate.
This should be a good test of my theory that elections are increasingly about race rather than class.
Let's look at the following:- Labour = Muslim vote; UKIP = white working class vote, Tories = white middle-class (and aspirational) vote, LibDems = non-white, non-Muslim vote.
Does anyone have any census or other data for these categories?
Lib Dems = non-existent vote, surely?
They got 3.7% at the GE.
And they might recover a bit.
That depends on the nature of the vote. If it's a hardcore, come-hell-or-high-water Lib Dem vote then yes, they'll go up as those voters will turn out on a dark, and quite probably cold and/or wet, December day.
On the other hand, if the 3.7% was padded out with people who quite liked Nick Clegg off the telly, then their vote share could easily halve. This will not be an election for the mildly politically engaged, nor will it be one in which the Lib Dems receive anything more than token coverage (unless their candidate does something monumentally stupid). If UKIP can build an anti-Labour bandwagon then that too will drag unaligned protest voters out of the yellow column.
“Labour has to abandon anti-austerity – a term that has never really resonated with the public, despite the left’s best efforts – in favour of being pro something else… If Labour can answer these questions, it will be in a far better position: able to commit to higher wages, reduced spending on social security without throttling working families, rebalancing the economy, preparing the country for future shocks, and having a positive vision rather than simply being against Osborne’s failure… the real answer is not to gloat over his bungled mess, but to find a positive alternative that inspires the country. Over to you, Labour.”
Higher wages? Reduced social security spending? Focus on economy and rebalancing? Positive vision?
Mate, have you thought about joining the Tory party?
Jones is probably suffering from long-term columnist's droop. If you have to write one, two or more columns a week, it gets increasingly hard to keep it up. Therefore write something that provokes people and gets them talking, even if you don't really agree with it.
It does the rest of his media career good as well: if he says something like that, he's likely to be invited to appear elsewhere to explain himself.
People take columnists too seriously (sorry, SeanT).
Where is SeanT BTW? Or is he now too rich and grand for the likes of us?
(I rather miss him.)
He's in India on holiday with his girlfriend, and not - I would imagine - getting much time to post.
Totally off topic, but looking at a commercial property and wondered if anyone with experience of the current up to £6k exemption for small business rates could enlighten me on:
- the process which governs this exemption - I think it was brought in around 2010/11, from memory of my last foray into property. - how easily it is changed - is it at the whim of the chancellor - how soon could it be changed - i.e. if mentioned in Autumn statement, would the change likely apply from April 2016 onwards?
In short - I would be eligible, but wonder how much I can rely on the exemption remaining....
I would expect Labour to win this seat 19 times out of 20.
Two things to look out for. First, turnout - how many voters feel motivated to put their cross in Labour's box on a cold Thursday evening in December? Secondly, the Lib Dem performance. In times gone by they would have been the contender. This time round, they will aspire to get close to saving their deposit.
Lib Dems losing their deposit has to be around 1-100.
@rcs1000 Is "tactical" shorthand for "highly geared" in the fund world ?
I always thought "tactical" meant: "the guy that runs this thing has is quite good at front-running orders from large long-only institutions, but we can't admit that, so we'll pretend that he's got some special 'tactical' sixth sense."
Why does everyone think that the asian vote will automatically vote Lab?
If I was a recent immigrant perhaps, but any older generation I would vote Cons to aspire or UKIP to haul up the ladder behind me.
I don't think anyone has trouble finding immigrants of all flavours being at least as much and often more anti-new-immigrant than anyone else.
Plus all this new (small "n") Lab class war stuff means nothing to immigrants as indeed it means nothing to anyone sensible.
Asian voters are becoming more likely to vote Conservative. That's bad news for Labour of course in this seat.
When have Hindi voters ever NOT been Tories? As far as I can see that cohort has always been strongly Tory. I'd expect most Sikhs are Tories too although this may not always have been the case.
The majority of Hindu/Sikh voters have been Labour, but are trending away.
The packaging of ethnic minorities/migrants/race as one group defined by skin colour has increasingly been dismantled post 9/11 and also by EU expansion.
Hindu and Sikh voters are now majority Conservative, but in the 80s and 90s many didn't feel welcome by certain elements of the party (many of which have left for purple pastures). Back then Indians had nowhere else to go. I would also add that the Muslim vote is not monolithic, Muslims from India and East Africa tend to be more Conservative as well, while those from Pakistan and Bangladesh are very, very Labour. It's as much a culture thing as well as religious.
"Remain or leave, it is the question our democracy has demanded we put because, quite frankly, the British people do not want to be part of an ever closer union.
We will not succeed as nations by ducking the big issues, or thinking we can avoid the key questions.
We want Britain to remain in a reformed European Union.
But it needs to be a European Union that works better for all the citizens of Europe — and works better for Britain too.
It needs to be a Europe where we are not part of that ever closer union you are more comfortable with.
In the UK, where this is widely interpreted as a commitment to ever-closer political integration, that concept is now supported by a tiny minority of voters.
I believe it is this that is the cause of some of the strains between Britain and our European partners. Ever closer union is not right for us any longer."
"So how do we build a better European Union?
There are a number of changes needed to make that happen.
If freedom of movement is to be sustainable, then our publics must see it is freedom to move to work, rather than freedom to choose the most generous benefits.
If politicians are to be accountable then we’ll need to strengthen the role of national parliaments."
"As Britain’s Chancellor, in charge of economic policy, speaking to German industry, I want to focus on just two specific changes today — and ask for your support.
For I believe these changes we seek are not just in our interests — they’re in the interests of the whole European Union, including Germany.
The first concerns the strength and competitiveness of the European economy.
Europe is losing ground to the rest of the world, and the people who pay the price are our citizens...
There is a second change to the EU we need to see — we need to fix the relationship between the member states in the Eurozone and those outside, so it works better for everyone."
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I think you're exaggerating with "most". The vast bulk of CDOs and CDSs were US mortgage related and either stayed in the US or went to specialist funds that were created for the express purpose of investing in them. (There's a certain UK based hedge fund who's biggest "product" was simply a repository for synthethic debt instruments, which was then levered up to give fabulous and "consistent" returns.)
It would be more accurate to say that the German banks owned tonnes of peripheral debt, and then your paragraph would be quite accurate.
That's why this whole German responsibility stuff is falling down, the bailout is and always has been for German and French banks through the back door. They unloaded their periphery debt (government and corporate) onto the ECB and ESM and then Merkel went around preaching responsibility to everyone once they were out of danger.
If PIIGS had gone to the wall back in 2010/11 then the German and French banking industries would have gone with them.
Totally off topic, but looking at a commercial property and wondered if anyone with experience of the current up to £6k exemption for small business rates could enlighten me on:
- the process which governs this exemption - I think it was brought in around 2010/11, from memory of my last foray into property. - how easily it is changed - is it at the whim of the chancellor - how soon could it be changed - i.e. if mentioned in Autumn statement, would the change likely apply from April 2016 onwards?
In short - I would be eligible, but wonder how much I can rely on the exemption remaining....
I believe it was a short term recession-easing proposal which is renewed every year or two. There is a taper from 100% at 6k to 0% at 12k.
I think the Chancellor would announce in the Autumn Statement to get earlier political capital. It is due to end in April 2016.
But I would expect it to persist, since the economy is not booming in the Small Business Sector, and it would be politically awkward to end. OTOH Business Rates are being devolved to the regions.
@rcs1000 Is "tactical" shorthand for "highly geared" in the fund world ?
I always thought "tactical" meant: "the guy that runs this thing has is quite good at front-running orders from large long-only institutions, but we can't admit that, so we'll pretend that he's got some special 'tactical' sixth sense."
25 years inside for that in the USA isn't it ?
Or if you're in Britain, tea and biscuits with the FSA .
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I think you're exaggerating with "most". The vast bulk of CDOs and CDSs were US mortgage related and either stayed in the US or went to specialist funds that were created for the express purpose of investing in them. (There's a certain UK based hedge fund who's biggest "product" was simply a repository for synthethic debt instruments, which was then levered up to give fabulous and "consistent" returns.)
It would be more accurate to say that the German banks owned tonnes of peripheral debt, and then your paragraph would be quite accurate.
That's why this whole German responsibility stuff is falling down, the bailout is and always has been for German and French banks through the back door. They unloaded their periphery debt (government and corporate) onto the ECB and ESM and then Merkel went around preaching responsibility to everyone once they were out of danger.
If PIIGS had gone to the wall back in 2010/11 then the German and French banking industries would have gone with them.
Although, unfortunately, so would ours.
The UK banks were big lenders in the overnight market to the French banks in particular.
It's the disturbing domino effect nature of all this stuff.
I also love how German industry is pushing for a reduction or abolishment of the new minimum wage because of the immigrant wave. They seem to be really struggling without wage dumping.
I also love how German industry is pushing for a reduction or abolishment of the new minimum wage because of the immigrant wave. They seem to be really struggling without wage dumping.
It is amazing to think that - until the beginning of this year - Germany was the only major economy in the world without a minimum wage.
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why does everyone think that the asian vote will automatically vote Lab?
If I was a recent immigrant perhaps, but any older generation I would vote Cons to aspire or UKIP to haul up the ladder behind me.
I don't think anyone has trouble finding immigrants of all flavours being at least as much and often more anti-new-immigrant than anyone else.
Plus all this new (small "n") Lab class war stuff means nothing to immigrants as indeed it means nothing to anyone sensible.
Asian voters are becoming more likely to vote Conservative. That's bad news for Labour of course in this seat.
When have Hindi voters ever NOT been Tories? As far as I can see that cohort has always been strongly Tory. I'd expect most Sikhs are Tories too although this may not always have been the case.
The majority of Hindu/Sikh voters have been Labour, but are trending away.
The packaging of ethnic minorities/migrants/race as one group defined by skin colour has increasingly been dismantled post 9/11 and also by EU expansion.
Hindu and Sikh voters are now majority Conservative, but in the 80s and 90s many didn't feel welcome by certain elements of the party (many of which have left for purple pastures). Back then Indians had nowhere else to go. I would also add that the Muslim vote is not monolithic, Muslims from India and East Africa tend to be more Conservative as well, while those from Pakistan and Bangladesh are very, very Labour. It's as much a culture thing as well as religious.
Totally off topic, but looking at a commercial property and wondered if anyone with experience of the current up to £6k exemption for small business rates could enlighten me on:
- the process which governs this exemption - I think it was brought in around 2010/11, from memory of my last foray into property. - how easily it is changed - is it at the whim of the chancellor - how soon could it be changed - i.e. if mentioned in Autumn statement, would the change likely apply from April 2016 onwards?
In short - I would be eligible, but wonder how much I can rely on the exemption remaining....
I believe it was a short term recession-easing proposal which is renewed every year or two. There is a taper from 100% at 6k to 0% at 12k.
I think the Chancellor would announce in the Autumn Statement to get earlier political capital. It is due to end in April 2016.
But I would expect it to persist, since the economy is not booming in the Small Business Sector, and it would be politically awkward to end. OTOH Business Rates are being devolved to the regions.
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I think you're exaggerating with "most". The vast bulk of CDOs and CDSs were US mortgage related and either stayed in the US or went to specialist funds that were created for the express purpose of investing in them. (There's a certain UK based hedge fund who's biggest "product" was simply a repository for synthethic debt instruments, which was then levered up to give fabulous and "consistent" returns.)
It would be more accurate to say that the German banks owned tonnes of peripheral debt, and then your paragraph would be quite accurate.
That's why this whole German responsibility stuff is falling down, the bailout is and always has been for German and French banks through the back door. They unloaded their periphery debt (government and corporate) onto the ECB and ESM and then Merkel went around preaching responsibility to everyone once they were out of danger.
If PIIGS had gone to the wall back in 2010/11 then the German and French banking industries would have gone with them.
Although, unfortunately, so would ours.
The UK banks were big lenders in the overnight market to the French banks in particular.
It's the disturbing domino effect nature of all this stuff.
Given that we had already bailed out two out of the four major lenders at that point adding Barclays wouldn't have been controversial and I highly doubt that HSBC would have had any systemic issues beyond needing some emergency liquidity for a week while Europe bailed out its banks and the ECB got into gear.
I think the doom and gloom scenario for the UK banking industry is overblown in the event of the PIIGS bankruptcy scenario. There would, of course, be some turmoil, but the UK government has proven it is willing and able to bail out even the biggest banks so I'm not convinced that people would have lost out on their uninsured deposits like they did in Cyprus or under the new bank bail in rules the EU have tried to force onto the sector.
Totally off topic, but looking at a commercial property and wondered if anyone with experience of the current up to £6k exemption for small business rates could enlighten me on:
- the process which governs this exemption - I think it was brought in around 2010/11, from memory of my last foray into property. - how easily it is changed - is it at the whim of the chancellor - how soon could it be changed - i.e. if mentioned in Autumn statement, would the change likely apply from April 2016 onwards?
In short - I would be eligible, but wonder how much I can rely on the exemption remaining....
In principle it's a temporary exemption:
The current temporary increase in Small Business Rate Relief, which started on 1 October 2010 and was due to end on 31 March 2015, will continue until 31 March 2016. The measure doubles the usual rate of relief so that ratepayers with rateable values below £6,000 pay no rates at all for the period, while ratepayers with rateable values between £6,000 and £12,000 receive tapered relief from 100 per cent to 0 per cent.
No special knowledge, but I'd be very surprised if the exemption was removed after March 2016. The direction of travel is to reduce business rates.
I hesitate to post this, but it seems to me that it's a useful addition to the debate: Denis MacShane has given 12 reasons why Britain will vote to leave the EU.
That's not bad for MacShane. Still off on the big bad press barons, how unfair it is BSE can't find anyone to give it money and, basically, the UK is a bit insular, but at least he's given it some thought.
Totally off topic, but looking at a commercial property and wondered if anyone with experience of the current up to £6k exemption for small business rates could enlighten me on:
- the process which governs this exemption - I think it was brought in around 2010/11, from memory of my last foray into property. - how easily it is changed - is it at the whim of the chancellor - how soon could it be changed - i.e. if mentioned in Autumn statement, would the change likely apply from April 2016 onwards?
In short - I would be eligible, but wonder how much I can rely on the exemption remaining....
In principle it's a temporary exemption:
The current temporary increase in Small Business Rate Relief, which started on 1 October 2010 and was due to end on 31 March 2015, will continue until 31 March 2016. The measure doubles the usual rate of relief so that ratepayers with rateable values below £6,000 pay no rates at all for the period, while ratepayers with rateable values between £6,000 and £12,000 receive tapered relief from 100 per cent to 0 per cent.
No special knowledge, but I'd be very surprised if the exemption was removed after March 2016. The direction of travel is to reduce business rates.
And yes, it's at the whim of the Chancellor!
[Edit: I see MattW has already answered]
Thanks Richard - confirmed my hopes and also my main fear. Much as I admire GO he does like changing rules and thresholds governing taxation....
Why does everyone think that the asian vote will automatically vote Lab?
If I was a recent immigrant perhaps, but any older generation I would vote Cons to aspire or UKIP to haul up the ladder behind me.
I don't think anyone has trouble finding immigrants of all flavours being at least as much and often more anti-new-immigrant than anyone else.
Plus all this new (small "n") Lab class war stuff means nothing to immigrants as indeed it means nothing to anyone sensible.
Asian voters are becoming more likely to vote Conservative. That's bad news for Labour of course in this seat.
When have Hindi voters ever NOT been Tories? As far as I can see that cohort has always been strongly Tory. I'd expect most Sikhs are Tories too although this may not always have been the case.
The majority of Hindu/Sikh voters have been Labour, but are trending away.
The packaging of ethnic minorities/migrants/race as one group defined by skin colour has increasingly been dismantled post 9/11 and also by EU expansion.
Hindu and Sikh voters are now majority Conservative, but in the 80s and 90s many didn't feel welcome by certain elements of the party (many of which have left for purple pastures). Back then Indians had nowhere else to go. I would also add that the Muslim vote is not monolithic, Muslims from India and East Africa tend to be more Conservative as well, while those from Pakistan and Bangladesh are very, very Labour. It's as much a culture thing as well as religious.
Similarly, Ipsos put the Tory BME vote at 23% in May. Labour was 65%.
Whatever the polls say or said, I know what I can see. I can see with my own eyes that the Indian community, particularly Hindu and Sikh, is voting Conservative, and Indian Muslims are more likely to vote Tory than Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims.
Some Labour posters on here were adamant that this wasn't happening and that even if it was the Tories have bet on the wrong minority because the growth rate of Muslims is much higher than it is for other minorities, but 2015 has thrown up enough results against the grain for there to be any doubt remaining that Indian voters (either from East Africa or from India) are increasingly voting Tory regardless of their religion. That, IMO, is a cultural difference of people coming from a nation which is comfortable with success vs people from Pakistan/Bangladesh where the culture is of perpetual victim status, which plays into Labour's hands.
A City lawyer has blamed a "hot-headed moment" after calling Liverpudlians "scouse scum" in a foul-tempered interview.
Clive O'Connell, a partner in the London office of US firm Goldberg Segalla, also called them "scouse scum idiots" in the interview, which was filmed as he left Stamford Bridge following Chelsea's defeat to Liverpool. On Twitter he told a Liverpool fan, "Crawl back to your horrible Merseyside hole".
A City lawyer has blamed a "hot-headed moment" after calling Liverpudlians "scouse scum" in a foul-tempered interview.
Clive O'Connell, a partner in the London office of US firm Goldberg Segalla, also called them "scouse scum idiots" in the interview, which was filmed as he left Stamford Bridge following Chelsea's defeat to Liverpool. On Twitter he told a Liverpool fan, "Crawl back to your horrible Merseyside hole".
A City lawyer has blamed a "hot-headed moment" after calling Liverpudlians "scouse scum" in a foul-tempered interview.
Clive O'Connell, a partner in the London office of US firm Goldberg Segalla, also called them "scouse scum idiots" in the interview, which was filmed as he left Stamford Bridge following Chelsea's defeat to Liverpool. On Twitter he told a Liverpool fan, "Crawl back to your horrible Merseyside hole".
A City lawyer has blamed a "hot-headed moment" after calling Liverpudlians "scouse scum" in a foul-tempered interview.
Clive O'Connell, a partner in the London office of US firm Goldberg Segalla, also called them "scouse scum idiots" in the interview, which was filmed as he left Stamford Bridge following Chelsea's defeat to Liverpool. On Twitter he told a Liverpool fan, "Crawl back to your horrible Merseyside hole".
Liverpool is a hole so he's not wrong. I still don't understand being a Tory and a Liverpool supporter.
The heart wants what the heart wants.
You can change your house, you can change your profession, you can change your nationality, you can even change your name, you can change your wife, you can even change political parties but you can never change your football club.
A City lawyer has blamed a "hot-headed moment" after calling Liverpudlians "scouse scum" in a foul-tempered interview.
Clive O'Connell, a partner in the London office of US firm Goldberg Segalla, also called them "scouse scum idiots" in the interview, which was filmed as he left Stamford Bridge following Chelsea's defeat to Liverpool. On Twitter he told a Liverpool fan, "Crawl back to your horrible Merseyside hole".
A memorandum of understanding that a future EU treaty or revision - TBC - will:
(1) include a rider clause exempting the UK from ever-closer Union (2) have longer periods of transitional controls for any future new EU members (3) something on freedom of movement meaning to work not claim benefits - but no 4-year period of ineligibility to claim as Cameron wanted (4) some words saying the interests of all 28 EU members need to be considered when making EU single market rules, that no preference will be shown to eurozone businesses, and with an emergency brake option (not a red card) for non-eurozone members on any future legislation (5) possibly something on NHS opt out from working time directive
The deal will be: you can integrate further, we won't oppose it, and we'll support an increase in the EU budget.
Why does everyone think that the asian vote will automatically vote Lab?
If I was a recent immigrant perhaps, but any older generation I would vote Cons to aspire or UKIP to haul up the ladder behind me.
I don't think anyone has trouble finding immigrants of all flavours being at least as much and often more anti-new-immigrant than anyone else.
Plus all this new (small "n") Lab class war stuff means nothing to immigrants as indeed it means nothing to anyone sensible.
Asian voters are becoming more likely to vote Conservative. That's bad news for Labour of course in this seat.
When have Hindi voters ever NOT been Tories? As far as I can see that cohort has always been strongly Tory. I'd expect most Sikhs are Tories too although this may not always have been the case.
The majority of Hindu/Sikh voters have been Labour, but are trending away.
The packaging of ethnic minorities/migrants/race as one group defined by skin colour has increasingly been dismantled post 9/11 and also by EU expansion.
Hindu and Sikh voters are now majority Conservative, but in the 80s and 90s many didn't feel welcome by certain elements of the party (many of which have left for purple pastures). Back then Indians had nowhere else to go. I would also add that the Muslim vote is not monolithic, Muslims from India and East Africa tend to be more Conservative as well, while those from Pakistan and Bangladesh are very, very Labour. It's as much a culture thing as well as religious.
Oh, well - I was the only PB Tory wot voted Labour at the GE
Given that we had already bailed out two out of the four major lenders at that point adding Barclays wouldn't have been controversial and I highly doubt that HSBC would have had any systemic issues beyond needing some emergency liquidity for a week while Europe bailed out its banks and the ECB got into gear.
I think the doom and gloom scenario for the UK banking industry is overblown in the event of the PIIGS bankruptcy scenario. There would, of course, be some turmoil, but the UK government has proven it is willing and able to bail out even the biggest banks so I'm not convinced that people would have lost out on their uninsured deposits like they did in Cyprus or under the new bank bail in rules the EU have tried to force onto the sector.
You are, of course, absolutely right. As the US basically showed, there is no limit to the extent of government support that can be offered by a solvent sovereign in extremis.
It's an interesting time to critique, of course. Ireland only required support because they propped up their banks - which had engaged in a positive orgy of speculative property lending. Those guarantees meant the Irish state couldn't borrow in the market, and meant that it had to go cap in hand. Of the 90% increase in total-deb-to-GDP in Ireland, almost two-thirds was related to propping up the banks through NAMA and through privatisations.
I wonder what would have happened had Ireland not issued the guarantees to banks? Would their situation have been worse - in that there would have been an imploding banking sector? Or better, in that the solvency of the Irish state would not have been questioned?
Thinking about it a bit more, I suspect, that the French and Germans would have propped up their banks in the event of Spain or Portugal defaulting. (Italy is a little different, as the vast bulk of Italian debt is owned by Italian banks, insurance companies and pension funds; a consequence of the fact that Italy was not a "capital importer" like the other peripheral European countries.)
A City lawyer has blamed a "hot-headed moment" after calling Liverpudlians "scouse scum" in a foul-tempered interview.
Clive O'Connell, a partner in the London office of US firm Goldberg Segalla, also called them "scouse scum idiots" in the interview, which was filmed as he left Stamford Bridge following Chelsea's defeat to Liverpool. On Twitter he told a Liverpool fan, "Crawl back to your horrible Merseyside hole".
On Topic - What are people's thoughts on likely turnout? A few comparators - Oldham East & Saddle (January) - 48%; Heywood and Middleton (Oct) - 36%; Feltham and Heston (last December by-election) - 28%; Manchester Central (Nov) - 18%
A City lawyer has blamed a "hot-headed moment" after calling Liverpudlians "scouse scum" in a foul-tempered interview.
Clive O'Connell, a partner in the London office of US firm Goldberg Segalla, also called them "scouse scum idiots" in the interview, which was filmed as he left Stamford Bridge following Chelsea's defeat to Liverpool. On Twitter he told a Liverpool fan, "Crawl back to your horrible Merseyside hole".
"Remain or leave, it is the question our democracy has demanded we put because, quite frankly, the British people do not want to be part of an ever closer union.
We will not succeed as nations by ducking the big issues, or thinking we can avoid the key questions.
We want Britain to remain in a reformed European Union.
But it needs to be a European Union that works better for all the citizens of Europe — and works better for Britain too.
It needs to be a Europe where we are not part of that ever closer union you are more comfortable with.
In the UK, where this is widely interpreted as a commitment to ever-closer political integration, that concept is now supported by a tiny minority of voters.
I believe it is this that is the cause of some of the strains between Britain and our European partners. Ever closer union is not right for us any longer."
"So how do we build a better European Union?
There are a number of changes needed to make that happen.
If freedom of movement is to be sustainable, then our publics must see it is freedom to move to work, rather than freedom to choose the most generous benefits.
If politicians are to be accountable then we’ll need to strengthen the role of national parliaments."
"As Britain’s Chancellor, in charge of economic policy, speaking to German industry, I want to focus on just two specific changes today — and ask for your support.
For I believe these changes we seek are not just in our interests — they’re in the interests of the whole European Union, including Germany.
The first concerns the strength and competitiveness of the European economy.
Europe is losing ground to the rest of the world, and the people who pay the price are our citizens...
There is a second change to the EU we need to see — we need to fix the relationship between the member states in the Eurozone and those outside, so it works better for everyone."
So basically he wants:
recognition that ever closer union is not for everyone;
agreement that freedom of movement is freedom to move for work, not to claim benefits.
Protection for non EZ countries in the Treaties.
A bigger role for national Parliaments.
A more integrated market for services.
Less EU bureaucracy.
Its interesting. I just wonder if there is enough time left before our referendum to get most of that.
A City lawyer has blamed a "hot-headed moment" after calling Liverpudlians "scouse scum" in a foul-tempered interview.
Clive O'Connell, a partner in the London office of US firm Goldberg Segalla, also called them "scouse scum idiots" in the interview, which was filmed as he left Stamford Bridge following Chelsea's defeat to Liverpool. On Twitter he told a Liverpool fan, "Crawl back to your horrible Merseyside hole".
The FT quoth "Europe cannot afford to see its investment banks shrink further without damaging the continent's economy, according to the chief executive of Credit Suisse."
Translation: man who runs investment bank that isn't doing very well makes transparent plea for government support.
“Labour has to abandon anti-austerity – a term that has never really resonated with the public, despite the left’s best efforts – in favour of being pro something else… If Labour can answer these questions, it will be in a far better position: able to commit to higher wages, reduced spending on social security without throttling working families, rebalancing the economy, preparing the country for future shocks, and having a positive vision rather than simply being against Osborne’s failure… the real answer is not to gloat over his bungled mess, but to find a positive alternative that inspires the country. Over to you, Labour.”
Higher wages? Reduced social security spending? Focus on economy and rebalancing? Positive vision?
Mate, have you thought about joining the Tory party?
Jones is probably suffering from long-term columnist's droop. If you have to write one, two or more columns a week, it gets increasingly hard to keep it up. Therefore write something that provokes people and gets them talking, even if you don't really agree with it.
It does the rest of his media career good as well: if he says something like that, he's likely to be invited to appear elsewhere to explain himself.
People take columnists too seriously (sorry, SeanT).
Where is SeanT BTW? Or is he now too rich and grand for the likes of us?
(I rather miss him.)
He's in India on holiday with his girlfriend, and not - I would imagine - getting much time to post.
"Remain or leave, it is the question our democracy has demanded we put because, quite frankly, the British people do not want to be part of an ever closer union.
We will not succeed as nations by ducking the big issues, or thinking we can avoid the key questions.
We want Britain to remain in a reformed European Union.
But it needs to be a European Union that works better for all the citizens of Europe — and works better for Britain too.
It needs to be a Europe where we are not part of that ever closer union you are more comfortable with.
In the UK, where this is widely interpreted as a commitment to ever-closer political integration, that concept is now supported by a tiny minority of voters.
I believe it is this that is the cause of some of the strains between Britain and our European partners. Ever closer union is not right for us any longer."
"So how do we build a better European Union?
There are a number of changes needed to make that happen.
If freedom of movement is to be sustainable, then our publics must see it is freedom to move to work, rather than freedom to choose the most generous benefits.
If politicians are to be accountable then we’ll need to strengthen the role of national parliaments."
"As Britain’s Chancellor, in charge of economic policy, speaking to German industry, I want to focus on just two specific changes today — and ask for your support.
For I believe these changes we seek are not just in our interests — they’re in the interests of the whole European Union, including Germany.
So basically he wants:
recognition that ever closer union is not for everyone;
agreement that freedom of movement is freedom to move for work, not to claim benefits.
Protection for non EZ countries in the Treaties.
A bigger role for national Parliaments.
A more integrated market for services.
Less EU bureaucracy
Its interesting. I just wonder if there is enough time left before our referendum to get most of that.
But the devil will be in the detail: we won't know what it means by the time we vote.
A lot of that could be claimed as a success by making an agreement to change paper treaties at a specified/unspecified point in the future.
We have no idea whether it'd be honoured by the EU or all other member states, watered down so it's pretty meaningless, or just ignored.
A memorandum of understanding that a future EU treaty or revision - TBC - will:
(1) include a rider clause exempting the UK from ever-closer Union (2) have longer periods of transitional controls for any future new EU members (3) something on freedom of movement meaning to work not claim benefits - but no 4-year period of ineligibility to claim as Cameron wanted (4) some words saying the interests of all 28 EU members need to be considered when making EU single market rules, that no preference will be shown to eurozone businesses, and with an emergency brake option (not a red card) for non-eurozone members on any future legislation (5) possibly something on NHS opt out from working time directive
The deal will be: you can integrate further, we won't oppose it, and we'll support an increase in the EU budget.
I missed out one rather important bit in the mix, which in some ways is the most interesting bit of the lot:
"We must never let taxpayers in countries that are not in the euro bear the cost for supporting countries in the eurozone.
This is exactly what was attempted in July, when, out of the blue, in flagrant breach of the agreement we’d all signed up to, and without even the courtesy of a telephone call, we were informed we could have to pay to bail out Greece.
That would have been grossly unfair.
We have fought hard, with German help, to stop that happening — and we succeeded.
But we shouldn’t have to fight a running battle on these issues.
We need to put things on an orderly basis with agreed principles."
"We seek to make these principles permanent and legally binding — and we want to design a simple mechanism to ensure the principles are enforced. These kinds of checks and guarantees exist in other parts of the EU’s governing rules."
The British obviously think they have a mechanism for getting all this agreed and legally binding. That looks to me like more than a memorandum of understanding.
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I'm not surprised. I'm not saying we're perfect here in the UK - we have our own corruption. But Germany seems to have it much worse.
I mean, what can you say about a country where this sort of thing was thought to be a good idea by a major institution?
Worth remembering that in Germany insider dealing was only made a criminal offence relatively recently, certainly later than in the UK. And it takes quite a long time after that before those in the business really understand that it is wrong and a bit longer after that before they act on that understanding.
And even now I'm not sure all get it.
Last time a young man in one of the local City bars was heard saying: "It's not crooked. It's smart."
Oh dear........
Last night a young man was heard..... etc .....not last time. Typing is abysmal these days.
Given that we had already bailed out two out of the four major lenders at that point adding Barclays wouldn't have been controversial and I highly doubt that HSBC would have had any systemic issues beyond needing some emergency liquidity for a week while Europe bailed out its banks and the ECB got into gear.
I think the doom and gloom scenario for the UK banking industry is overblown in the event of the PIIGS bankruptcy scenario. There would, of course, be some turmoil, but the UK government has proven it is willing and able to bail out even the biggest banks so I'm not convinced that people would have lost out on their uninsured deposits like they did in Cyprus or under the new bank bail in rules the EU have tried to force onto the sector.
You are, of course, absolutely right. As the US basically showed, there is no limit to the extent of government support that can be offered by a solvent sovereign in extremis.
It's an interesting time to critique, of course. Ireland only required support because they propped up their banks - which had engaged in a positive orgy of speculative property lending. Those guarantees meant the Irish state couldn't borrow in the market, and meant that it had to go cap in hand. Of the 90% increase in total-deb-to-GDP in Ireland, almost two-thirds was related to propping up the banks through NAMA and through privatisations.
I wonder what would have happened had Ireland not issued the guarantees to banks? Would their situation have been worse - in that there would have been an imploding banking sector? Or better, in that the solvency of the Irish state would not have been questioned?
Thinking about it a bit more, I suspect, that the French and Germans would have propped up their banks in the event of Spain or Portugal defaulting. (Italy is a little different, as the vast bulk of Italian debt is owned by Italian banks, insurance companies and pension funds; a consequence of the fact that Italy was not a "capital importer" like the other peripheral European countries.)
I have always said that the EMU government should have just let their banks go to the way and stepped in only to guarantee customer deposits. Guaranteeing the bond holders was a disaster policy that has held Europe back for the last five years. The Germans in trying to protect German banks have sacrificed growth and employment across the whole continent. Europe is stagnating and it is directly related to the dysfunctional banking sector which is now all about protecting bond holders above all else.
But the devil will be in the detail: we won't know what it means by the time we vote.
A lot of that could be claimed as a success by making an agreement to change paper treaties at a specified/unspecified point in the future.
We have no idea whether it'd be honoured by the EU or all other member states, watered down so it's pretty meaningless, or just ignored.
Realistically, it would need the UK to have two referendum. One in 2016/2017 on the outline of the agreement. And a second - no later than, say, 2022 - on the final treaty that codified the changes. Said treaty would also need to contain specific changes to the role of the ECJ to prevent it from continuing to rule in a way that always encouraged "Ever Closer Union".
I have always said that the EMU government should have just let their banks go to the way and stepped in only to guarantee customer deposits. Guaranteeing the bond holders was a disaster policy that has held Europe back for the last five years. The Germans in trying to protect German banks have sacrificed growth and employment across the whole continent. Europe is stagnating and it is directly related to the dysfunctional banking sector which is now all about protecting bond holders above all else.
I don't think it's as simple as that: don't forget that banks fund themselves through a variety of different measures - repos, collateralised debt, etc. Many of these instruments are higher up the "capital structure" than customer deposits, and explicitly so.
A government that attempted to rewrite the order in which assets were distributed would find itself stuck in the courts for decades.
If you look at the changes that have been made in the Eurozone post the EZ crisis, they have explicitly been going down your path, essentially moving to a structure where bond holders can be "bailed in", and the mechanism for such is transparent and clear to the person buying the bond in the first place.
recognition that ever closer union is not for everyone;
agreement that freedom of movement is freedom to move for work, not to claim benefits.
Protection for non EZ countries in the Treaties.
A bigger role for national Parliaments.
A more integrated market for services.
Less EU bureaucracy.
pretty vague and unimpressive stuff, as expected.
Most importantly, there is so little ambition here - nothing concrete about returning any competences to the UK, vague talk of 'recognition', even vaguer talk of 'less bureaucracy'.
It's textbook Foreign Office stuff - a bit of cheap lipstick to smear on the face of an ugly pig
A memorandum of understanding that a future EU treaty or revision - TBC - will:
(1) include a rider clause exempting the UK from ever-closer Union (2) have longer periods of transitional controls for any future new EU members (3) something on freedom of movement meaning to work not claim benefits - but no 4-year period of ineligibility to claim as Cameron wanted (4) some words saying the interests of all 28 EU members need to be considered when making EU single market rules, that no preference will be shown to eurozone businesses, and with an emergency brake option (not a red card) for non-eurozone members on any future legislation (5) possibly something on NHS opt out from working time directive
The deal will be: you can integrate further, we won't oppose it, and we'll support an increase in the EU budget.
I missed out one rather important bit in the mix, which in some ways is the most interesting bit of the lot:
"We must never let taxpayers in countries that are not in the euro bear the cost for supporting countries in the eurozone.
This is exactly what was attempted in July, when, out of the blue, in flagrant breach of the agreement we’d all signed up to, and without even the courtesy of a telephone call, we were informed we could have to pay to bail out Greece.
That would have been grossly unfair.
We have fought hard, with German help, to stop that happening — and we succeeded.
But we shouldn’t have to fight a running battle on these issues.
We need to put things on an orderly basis with agreed principles."
"We seek to make these principles permanent and legally binding — and we want to design a simple mechanism to ensure the principles are enforced. These kinds of checks and guarantees exist in other parts of the EU’s governing rules."
The British obviously think they have a mechanism for getting all this agreed and legally binding. That looks to me like more than a memorandum of understanding.
Yeah, but that's just about some stronger protection to not be on the hook for bailout cash - something we were *already* supposed to have anyway. It's quite another thing to renegotiate powers back or alter existing governance structures.
It's possible that bailout liability could be fixed formally fairly quickly but not the rest.
But the devil will be in the detail: we won't know what it means by the time we vote.
A lot of that could be claimed as a success by making an agreement to change paper treaties at a specified/unspecified point in the future.
We have no idea whether it'd be honoured by the EU or all other member states, watered down so it's pretty meaningless, or just ignored.
Realistically, it would need the UK to have two referendum. One in 2016/2017 on the outline of the agreement. And a second - no later than, say, 2022 - on the final treaty that codified the changes. Said treaty would also need to contain specific changes to the role of the ECJ to prevent it from continuing to rule in a way that always encouraged "Ever Closer Union".
But the devil will be in the detail: we won't know what it means by the time we vote.
A lot of that could be claimed as a success by making an agreement to change paper treaties at a specified/unspecified point in the future.
We have no idea whether it'd be honoured by the EU or all other member states, watered down so it's pretty meaningless, or just ignored.
Realistically, it would need the UK to have two referendum. One in 2016/2017 on the outline of the agreement. And a second - no later than, say, 2022 - on the final treaty that codified the changes. Said treaty would also need to contain specific changes to the role of the ECJ to prevent it from continuing to rule in a way that always encouraged "Ever Closer Union".
Which probabt won't happen, unless it's a very close Remain and the EU backtracks around about the time of the Tory leadership election.
I could see a victorious May or Gove (big "ifs") pledging that for GE2020 if it starts to look dicey, and perhaps throwing in one or two more renegotiation demands if things really do start to head south.
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
On Topic - What are people's thoughts on likely turnout? A few comparators - Oldham East & Saddle (January) - 48%; Heywood and Middleton (Oct) - 36%; Feltham and Heston (last December by-election) - 28%; Manchester Central (Nov) - 18%
Low in December. Poor weather. Short day. Minds on Xmas etc etc. Say 30%?
I have always said that the EMU government should have just let their banks go to the way and stepped in only to guarantee customer deposits. Guaranteeing the bond holders was a disaster policy that has held Europe back for the last five years. The Germans in trying to protect German banks have sacrificed growth and employment across the whole continent. Europe is stagnating and it is directly related to the dysfunctional banking sector which is now all about protecting bond holders above all else.
I don't think it's as simple as that: don't forget that banks fund themselves through a variety of different measures - repos, collateralised debt, etc. Many of these instruments are higher up the "capital structure" than customer deposits, and explicitly so.
A government that attempted to rewrite the order in which assets were distributed would find itself stuck in the courts for decades.
If you look at the changes that have been made in the Eurozone post the EZ crisis, they have explicitly been going down your path, essentially moving to a structure where bond holders can be "bailed in", and the mechanism for such is transparent and clear to the person buying the bond in the first place.
I was taking a simplistic view, but I don't disagree with you. What we're talking about here is't too different though and the sums are not too different either.
The changes that have been made try to force EMU nations to protect senior bond holders at any cost, even at the cost of ordinary depositors which I think is wrong. Shareholders and bondholders should know what they are getting themselves into and the level of protection being given to senior bondholders at the expense of depositors (and the other instruments you have mentioned) is far too high. We all know why though, the main senior bondholder of most EMU banks is the ECB and forcing losses onto the ECB would be politically toxic for the EU, so as always it is politics > economics in the EU.
Osborne's speech is very interesting indeed, and extremely well-crafted to get German support:
I said the friendship between our two countries was based on shared values. One of those values is that we don’t insist on central uniformity, but instead we respect different histories and traditions and approaches.
It is that respect for difference that has brought four nations together in one United Kingdom, and united ancient kingdoms like Saxony and Bavaria with city states like Hamburg and Bremen in the great success of the Bundesrepublik.
We should show the same respect to the difference approaches our two countries take towards the European Union.
Of course for this audience he has focused on competitiveness (which is his main interest as well), but allowing for that we can see the outline of the deal the government is proposing, which is pretty much what I've been suggesting for five years: treaty change to give them closer integration for the Eurozone, with our position protected, and a tip-toeing away of the UK from the aspects of the EU which are not necessary to the Single Market.
@MaxPB The whole system is broken and holding back growth as you say. Pension funds HAVING to hold Gov't debt at ANY price is another broken part.
That's Basle rules on capital adequacy, not EU rules.
I've not been paying too much attention, but anecdotal and selected hearing of results/reorgs/re-caps at banks suggest the sector is shedding profit and capital at the moment. Is that a fair representation?
Which probabt won't happen, unless it's a very close Remain and the EU backtracks around about the time of the Tory leadership election.
I could see a victorious May or Gove (big "ifs") pledging that for GE2020 if it starts to look dicey, and perhaps throwing in one or two more renegotiation demands if things really do start to head south.
I was saying what *should* happen, not what *will* happen.
If Mr Cameron is recommending something that is contingent on future treaty changes, then there needs to be some mechanism for ensuring the treaty says what was in the Memorandum of Understanding. That could be a cross-party committee, or a proper second referendum. Otherwise, there is the very possible issue that the treaty looks very little like the MoU - especially as a number of the Eurozone governments that need to sign such a treaty are likely to change between now and any final treaty.
recognition that ever closer union is not for everyone;
agreement that freedom of movement is freedom to move for work, not to claim benefits.
Protection for non EZ countries in the Treaties.
A bigger role for national Parliaments.
A more integrated market for services.
Less EU bureaucracy.
pretty vague and unimpressive stuff, as expected.
Most importantly, there is so little ambition here - nothing concrete about returning any competences to the UK, vague talk of 'recognition', even vaguer talk of 'less bureaucracy'.
It's textbook Foreign Office stuff - a bit of cheap lipstick to smear on the face of an ugly pig
This provides the entire basis for the Cameron/Osborne view IMHO:
You are, of course, absolutely right. As the US basically showed, there is no limit to the extent of government support that can be offered by a solvent sovereign in extremis.
It's an interesting time to critique, of course. Ireland only required support because they propped up their banks - which had engaged in a positive orgy of speculative property lending. Those guarantees meant the Irish state couldn't borrow in the market, and meant that it had to go cap in hand. Of the 90% increase in total-deb-to-GDP in Ireland, almost two-thirds was related to propping up the banks through NAMA and through privatisations.
I wonder what would have happened had Ireland not issued the guarantees to banks? Would their situation have been worse - in that there would have been an imploding banking sector? Or better, in that the solvency of the Irish state would not have been questioned?
Thinking about it a bit more, I suspect, that the French and Germans would have propped up their banks in the event of Spain or Portugal defaulting. (Italy is a little different, as the vast bulk of Italian debt is owned by Italian banks, insurance companies and pension funds; a consequence of the fact that Italy was not a "capital importer" like the other peripheral European countries.)
I have always said that the EMU government should have just let their banks go to the way and stepped in only to guarantee customer deposits. Guaranteeing the bond holders was a disaster policy that has held Europe back for the last five years. The Germans in trying to protect German banks have sacrificed growth and employment across the whole continent. Europe is stagnating and it is directly related to the dysfunctional banking sector which is now all about protecting bond holders above all else.
It is odd that the Left have been so keen on the EU given all this. Essentially they have gone along with a policy of austerity for people in order to help out banks and bond-holders, not one would have thought the obvious groups for the Left to care about. Now there may be good economic reasons for doing all this but it's nonetheless an odd political position for the Left to take.
They have (and not only them) put their belief in/love for the EU above the actual practical consequences of what the EU is doing for the citizens they profess to care about. No wonder people are so disillusioned with politicians.
Whenever I come across a cheerful young European hard at work in our country, as I seem to do fairly frequently, I feel guilty about flirting with OUT.
I thought the whole point of flirting with cheerful young Europeans was to get in?
Osborne's speech is very interesting indeed, and extremely well-crafted to get German support:
I said the friendship between our two countries was based on shared values. One of those values is that we don’t insist on central uniformity, but instead we respect different histories and traditions and approaches.
It is that respect for difference that has brought four nations together in one United Kingdom, and united ancient kingdoms like Saxony and Bavaria with city states like Hamburg and Bremen in the great success of the Bundesrepublik.
We should show the same respect to the difference approaches our two countries take towards the European Union.
Of course for this audience he has focused on competitiveness (which is his main interest as well), but allowing for that we can see the outline of the deal the government is proposing, which is pretty much what I've been suggesting for five years: treaty change to give them closer integration for the Eurozone, with our position protected, and a tip-toeing away of the UK from the aspects of the EU which are not necessary to the Single Market.
@MaxPB The whole system is broken and holding back growth as you say. Pension funds HAVING to hold Gov't debt at ANY price is another broken part.
That's Basle rules on capital adequacy, not EU rules.
I've not been paying too much attention, but anecdotal and selected hearing of results/reorgs/re-caps at banks suggest the sector is shedding profit and capital at the moment. Is that a fair representation?
Fines and misconduct settlements are eating away at capital and profits right now. Eventually this will die down, but overall ROE is decreasing as well, yes.
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I think you're exaggerating with "most". The vast bulk of CDOs and CDSs were US mortgage related and either stayed in the US or went to specialist funds that were created for the express purpose of investing in them. (There's a certain UK based hedge fund who's biggest "product" was simply a repository for synthethic debt instruments, which was then levered up to give fabulous and "consistent" returns.)
It would be more accurate to say that the German banks owned tonnes of peripheral debt, and then your paragraph would be quite accurate.
Not commenting on the absolute amounts, because I'm sure you're accurate. But it's equally clear that the Landesbanken, for well known reasons, were desperate for these investments and were often seen as soft touches by aggressive young salesmen who had forgotten that bankers exist to serve their clients
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
I thought he had said that he would rejoin Labour in a heartbeat if Corbyn were elected. Has Labour - gasp! - rejected him? Or has George not actually applied to join?
@MaxPB The whole system is broken and holding back growth as you say. Pension funds HAVING to hold Gov't debt at ANY price is another broken part.
That's Basle rules on capital adequacy, not EU rules.
I've not been paying too much attention, but anecdotal and selected hearing of results/reorgs/re-caps at banks suggest the sector is shedding profit and capital at the moment. Is that a fair representation?
No.
Across Europe (including Switzerland, Norway and the UK), tier one capital ratios have increased from sub 5% before the Global Financial Crisis to 10-12% now.
This has been achieved in two ways: firstly, there were substantial equity raises (often with governments reaching into their own pockets - see RBS), secondly, banks largely stopped paying dividends.
We are now beginning to see bank balance sheets bolstered to a level where dividends are now being reintroduced. Commerzbank in Germany just reinstated its dividend. BNP in France now pays one. The Spanish banks, who were most aggressive in writing off bad loans and recapitalising themselves, now almost all pay dividends.
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
I thought he had said that he would rejoin Labour in a heartbeat if Corbyn were elected. Has Labour - gasp! - rejected him? Or has George not actually applied to join?
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
I thought he had said that he would rejoin Labour in a heartbeat if Corbyn were elected. Has Labour - gasp! - rejected him? Or has George not actually applied to join?
He wants them to withdraw his dismissal from the party, saying he should never have been expelled
If he was back in the fold he'd be a good candidate here
@MaxPB The whole system is broken and holding back growth as you say. Pension funds HAVING to hold Gov't debt at ANY price is another broken part.
That's Basle rules on capital adequacy, not EU rules.
I've not been paying too much attention, but anecdotal and selected hearing of results/reorgs/re-caps at banks suggest the sector is shedding profit and capital at the moment. Is that a fair representation?
No.
Across Europe (including Switzerland, Norway and the UK), tier one capital ratios have increased from sub 5% before the Global Financial Crisis to 10-12% now.
This has been achieved in two ways: firstly, there were substantial equity raises (often with governments reaching into their own pockets - see RBS), secondly, banks largely stopped paying dividends.
We are now beginning to see bank balance sheets bolstered to a level where dividends are now being reintroduced. Commerzbank in Germany just reinstated its dividend. BNP in France now pays one. The Spanish banks, who were most aggressive in writing off bad loans and recapitalising themselves, now almost all pay dividends.
I think he is talking about the last couple of years rather than the post 2010 trend of increasing capital ratios.
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I think you're exaggerating with "most". The vast bulk of CDOs and CDSs were US mortgage related and either stayed in the US or went to specialist funds that were created for the express purpose of investing in them. (There's a certain UK based hedge fund who's biggest "product" was simply a repository for synthethic debt instruments, which was then levered up to give fabulous and "consistent" returns.)
It would be more accurate to say that the German banks owned tonnes of peripheral debt, and then your paragraph would be quite accurate.
Not commenting on the absolute amounts, because I'm sure you're accurate. But it's equally clear that the Landesbanken, for well known reasons, were desperate for these investments and were often seen as soft touches by aggressive young salesmen who had forgotten that bankers exist to serve their clients
That's not quite fair. They were just playing the system. Sub Libor funding due to the Laender backing and buying AAA CDO's due the enormous yield with little regard for the actual nature of the instruments. they all looked very clever for a while until the music stopped. I seem to remember the head of structured products at one these banks later claimed he had "no idea" what he was buying....... mmmmm.
@MaxPB The whole system is broken and holding back growth as you say. Pension funds HAVING to hold Gov't debt at ANY price is another broken part.
That's Basle rules on capital adequacy, not EU rules.
I've not been paying too much attention, but anecdotal and selected hearing of results/reorgs/re-caps at banks suggest the sector is shedding profit and capital at the moment. Is that a fair representation?
No.
Across Europe (including Switzerland, Norway and the UK), tier one capital ratios have increased from sub 5% before the Global Financial Crisis to 10-12% now.
This has been achieved in two ways: firstly, there were substantial equity raises (often with governments reaching into their own pockets - see RBS), secondly, banks largely stopped paying dividends.
We are now beginning to see bank balance sheets bolstered to a level where dividends are now being reintroduced. Commerzbank in Germany just reinstated its dividend. BNP in France now pays one. The Spanish banks, who were most aggressive in writing off bad loans and recapitalising themselves, now almost all pay dividends.
Thanks Robert.
So StanChar and Deutsche are exceptions rather than the rule?
It is remarkably easy to get behind the curve on this - and I must take some of the blame for not renewing my FT subscription this year - but it seems that the standard of non-paid for financial journalism is worsening....
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I think you're exaggerating with "most". The vast bulk of CDOs and CDSs were US mortgage related and either stayed in the US or went to specialist funds that were created for the express purpose of investing in them. (There's a certain UK based hedge fund who's biggest "product" was simply a repository for synthethic debt instruments, which was then levered up to give fabulous and "consistent" returns.)
It would be more accurate to say that the German banks owned tonnes of peripheral debt, and then your paragraph would be quite accurate.
Not commenting on the absolute amounts, because I'm sure you're accurate. But it's equally clear that the Landesbanken, for well known reasons, were desperate for these investments and were often seen as soft touches by aggressive young salesmen who had forgotten that bankers exist to serve their clients
I have to race off to a meeting in a second (I'm in sunny Ottawa), but you are absolutely right that the German Landesbank were seen by many as "patsies". However, if we're going to get all technical about it , I would point out that CDOs and CDSs are not really in the same category at all (the first are synthetic bonds, the second is default insurance), and if European institutions had been buying CDSs they would have made out like banditos.
I would also like to point out that the Germans *did* let a number of banks go bust. And the largest "bad banks" in Europe are the run-off portfolios of these bust banks.
Some Labour posters on here were adamant that this wasn't happening and that even if it was the Tories have bet on the wrong minority because the growth rate of Muslims is much higher than it is for other minorities, but 2015 has thrown up enough results against the grain for there to be any doubt remaining that Indian voters (either from East Africa or from India) are increasingly voting Tory regardless of their religion. That, IMO, is a cultural difference of people coming from a nation which is comfortable with success vs people from Pakistan/Bangladesh where the culture is of perpetual victim status, which plays into Labour's hands.
My understanding is that the Gujarati community is pretty solidly Tory and has been for a long time. In part this is due to their work ethic (they are a lot of small shopkeepers and particularly pharmacists) and in part due to the fact that Heath gave a lot of them passports to flee Idi Amin.
'This provides the entire basis for the Cameron/Osborne view IMHO:'
Yes you are right - that is what I alluded to on here several days ago. Osborne and Cameron are 100% the playthings of the FO on this.
It should have been obvious from the moment that the FO document you link to was published that the whole renegotiation process would be a cosmetic one.
To misquote 'The Leopard' they are trying to pretend some things will change so that everything will remain the same.
@MaxPB The whole system is broken and holding back growth as you say. Pension funds HAVING to hold Gov't debt at ANY price is another broken part.
That's Basle rules on capital adequacy, not EU rules.
I've not been paying too much attention, but anecdotal and selected hearing of results/reorgs/re-caps at banks suggest the sector is shedding profit and capital at the moment. Is that a fair representation?
No.
Across Europe (including Switzerland, Norway and the UK), tier one capital ratios have increased from sub 5% before the Global Financial Crisis to 10-12% now.
This has been achieved in two ways: firstly, there were substantial equity raises (often with governments reaching into their own pockets - see RBS), secondly, banks largely stopped paying dividends.
We are now beginning to see bank balance sheets bolstered to a level where dividends are now being reintroduced. Commerzbank in Germany just reinstated its dividend. BNP in France now pays one. The Spanish banks, who were most aggressive in writing off bad loans and recapitalising themselves, now almost all pay dividends.
I think he is talking about the last couple of years rather than the post 2010 trend of increasing capital ratios.
I should have been clearer - I mean in the last quarter.
@MaxPB The whole system is broken and holding back growth as you say. Pension funds HAVING to hold Gov't debt at ANY price is another broken part.
That's Basle rules on capital adequacy, not EU rules.
I've not been paying too much attention, but anecdotal and selected hearing of results/reorgs/re-caps at banks suggest the sector is shedding profit and capital at the moment. Is that a fair representation?
No.
Across Europe (including Switzerland, Norway and the UK), tier one capital ratios have increased from sub 5% before the Global Financial Crisis to 10-12% now.
This has been achieved in two ways: firstly, there were substantial equity raises (often with governments reaching into their own pockets - see RBS), secondly, banks largely stopped paying dividends.
We are now beginning to see bank balance sheets bolstered to a level where dividends are now being reintroduced. Commerzbank in Germany just reinstated its dividend. BNP in France now pays one. The Spanish banks, who were most aggressive in writing off bad loans and recapitalising themselves, now almost all pay dividends.
Thanks Robert.
So StanChar and Deutsche are exceptions rather than the rule?
It is remarkably easy to get behind the curve on this - and I must take some of the blame for not renewing my FT subscription this year - but it seems that the standard of non-paid for financial journalism is worsening....
Deutsche Bank's problem was that it wanted to play investment banking with the big boys (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the like), and it turned out that... that... that... that wasn't a very good idea.
The FT quoth "Europe cannot afford to see its investment banks shrink further without damaging the continent's economy, according to the chief executive of Credit Suisse."
Translation: man who runs investment bank that isn't doing very well makes transparent plea for government support.
TBF First Boston continues to do as well as it always has.
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I'm not surprised. I'm not saying we're perfect here in the UK - we have our own corruption. But Germany seems to have it much worse.
I mean, what can you say about a country where this sort of thing was thought to be a good idea by a major institution?
Worth remembering that in Germany insider dealing was only made a criminal offence relatively recently, certainly later than in the UK. And it takes quite a long time after that before those in the business really understand that it is wrong and a bit longer after that before they act on that understanding.
And even now I'm not sure all get it.
Last time a young man in one of the local City bars was heard saying: "It's not crooked. It's smart."
Oh dear........
Last night a young man was heard..... etc .....not last time. Typing is abysmal these days.
As soon as you try to justify that something is "not crooked" a red flag should go up in your head!
Osborne's speech is very interesting indeed, and extremely well-crafted to get German support:
I said the friendship between our two countries was based on shared values. One of those values is that we don’t insist on central uniformity, but instead we respect different histories and traditions and approaches.
It is that respect for difference that has brought four nations together in one United Kingdom, and united ancient kingdoms like Saxony and Bavaria with city states like Hamburg and Bremen in the great success of the Bundesrepublik.
We should show the same respect to the difference approaches our two countries take towards the European Union.
Of course for this audience he has focused on competitiveness (which is his main interest as well), but allowing for that we can see the outline of the deal the government is proposing, which is pretty much what I've been suggesting for five years: treaty change to give them closer integration for the Eurozone, with our position protected, and a tip-toeing away of the UK from the aspects of the EU which are not necessary to the Single Market.
That's the speech for the jury. All emotion and designed to sound good.
We need facts and details and agreements signed in blood and nailed to the floor.
So never mind the ability to delay something. That's largely worthless. We need a cast-iron mechanism whereby both a majority of Euro countries and non-Euro countries have to agree something and that if the UK is the only non-Euro country it gets an effective veto.
Similarly, there must be no discrimination against countries or companies or individuals not in the eurozone. The ECJ and the EU bureaucracy must not be allowed to introduce or permit measures blocked under one route to go through another.
The Single Market in Services - a measure on which the French in particular have dragged their feet for far too long - must be implemented without delay.
Home affairs e.g. policing, justice, criminal law etc should not fall within the EU's remit at all.
The rest of the EU must accept that financial services are a key UK industry (others may suggest others) and therefore there cannot be proposals designed to or which have the effect of damaging a nation's key industries.
There may be other points but there needs to be - in addition to splendid speeches - some actual substance which benefits us and can be shown to benefit us. We need to be positively French in our determination to make the EU work for us and if the rest of the EU wants to keep us and our money in, they should be equally willing to accommodate us instead of treating us like some grumbling but rich relative who can be ignored except when it comes to birthdays and Xmas.
@MaxPB The whole system is broken and holding back growth as you say. Pension funds HAVING to hold Gov't debt at ANY price is another broken part.
That's Basle rules on capital adequacy, not EU rules.
I've not been paying too much attention, but anecdotal and selected hearing of results/reorgs/re-caps at banks suggest the sector is shedding profit and capital at the moment. Is that a fair representation?
No.
Across Europe (including Switzerland, Norway and the UK), tier one capital ratios have increased from sub 5% before the Global Financial Crisis to 10-12% now.
This has been achieved in two ways: firstly, there were substantial equity raises (often with governments reaching into their own pockets - see RBS), secondly, banks largely stopped paying dividends.
We are now beginning to see bank balance sheets bolstered to a level where dividends are now being reintroduced. Commerzbank in Germany just reinstated its dividend. BNP in France now pays one. The Spanish banks, who were most aggressive in writing off bad loans and recapitalising themselves, now almost all pay dividends.
I think he is talking about the last couple of years rather than the post 2010 trend of increasing capital ratios.
I should have been clearer - I mean in the last quarter.
I think 2Q numbers were reasonably good for European banks. BNP (which I think is the Eurozone's biggest bank) in particular had good numbers.
You are, of course, absolutely right. As the US basically showed, there is no limit to the extent of government support that can be offered by a solvent sovereign in extremis.
It's an interesting time to critique, of course. Ireland only required support because they propped up their banks - which had engaged in a positive orgy of speculative property lending. Those guarantees meant the Irish state couldn't borrow in the market, and meant that it had to go cap in hand. Of the 90% increase in total-deb-to-GDP in Ireland, almost two-thirds was related to propping up the banks through NAMA and through privatisations.
I wonder what would have happened had Ireland not issued the guarantees to banks? Would their situation have been worse - in that there would have been an imploding banking sector? Or better, in that the solvency of the Irish state would not have been questioned?
Thinking about it a bit more, I suspect, that the French and Germans would have propped up their banks in the event of Spain or Portugal defaulting. (Italy is a little different, as the vast bulk of Italian debt is owned by Italian banks, insurance companies and pension funds; a consequence of the fact that Italy was not a "capital importer" like the other peripheral European countries.)
I have always said that the EMU government should have just let their banks go to the way and stepped in only to guarantee customer deposits. Guaranteeing the bond holders was a disaster policy that has held Europe back for the last five years. The Germans in trying to protect German banks have sacrificed growth and employment across the whole continent. Europe is stagnating and it is directly related to the dysfunctional banking sector which is now all about protecting bond holders above all else.
It is odd that the Left have been so keen on the EU given all this. Essentially they have gone along with a policy of austerity for people in order to help out banks and bond-holders, not one would have thought the obvious groups for the Left to care about. Now there may be good economic reasons for doing all this but it's nonetheless an odd political position for the Left to take.
They have (and not only them) put their belief in/love for the EU above the actual practical consequences of what the EU is doing for the citizens they profess to care about. No wonder people are so disillusioned with politicians.
The EU was historically not a left-right issue. Many on the left were and are hostile to the EU, and many on the right enthusiastic; most of our inbound steps were under Conservative governments. It is arguable UKIP might have more MPs if it had remained a single issue, anti-EU party and not added a lot of right wing baggage.
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I think you're exaggerating with "most". The vast bulk of CDOs and CDSs were US mortgage related and either stayed in the US or went to specialist funds that were created for the express purpose of investing in them. (There's a certain UK based hedge fund who's biggest "product" was simply a repository for synthethic debt instruments, which was then levered up to give fabulous and "consistent" returns.)
It would be more accurate to say that the German banks owned tonnes of peripheral debt, and then your paragraph would be quite accurate.
Not commenting on the absolute amounts, because I'm sure you're accurate. But it's equally clear that the Landesbanken, for well known reasons, were desperate for these investments and were often seen as soft touches by aggressive young salesmen who had forgotten that bankers exist to serve their clients
That's not quite fair. They were just playing the system. Sub Libor funding due to the Laender backing and buying AAA CDO's due the enormous yield with little regard for the actual nature of the instruments. they all looked very clever for a while until the music stopped. I seem to remember the head of structured products at one these banks later claimed he had "no idea" what he was buying....... mmmmm.
The issue was that the sub-LIBOR funding was going away.
So they were faced with cost cuts to make them profitable, withdrawing from politically directed lending and/or chasing high risk, high yield investments.
The local politicians wouldn't let them go with cost cuts or sensible lending policies...
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I'm not surprised. I'm not saying we're perfect here in the UK - we have our own corruption. But Germany seems to have it much worse.
I mean, what can you say about a country where this sort of thing was thought to be a good idea by a major institution?
Worth remembering that in Germany insider dealing was only made a criminal offence relatively recently, certainly later than in the UK. And it takes quite a long time after that before those in the business really understand that it is wrong and a bit longer after that before they act on that understanding.
And even now I'm not sure all get it.
Last time a young man in one of the local City bars was heard saying: "It's not crooked. It's smart."
Oh dear........
Last night a young man was heard..... etc .....not last time. Typing is abysmal these days.
As soon as you try to justify that something is "not crooked" a red flag should go up in your head!
Well, quite. I hope said young man doesn't work in the same place I do. I really do.
recognition that ever closer union is not for everyone;
agreement that freedom of movement is freedom to move for work, not to claim benefits.
Protection for non EZ countries in the Treaties.
A bigger role for national Parliaments.
A more integrated market for services.
Less EU bureaucracy.
pretty vague and unimpressive stuff, as expected.
Most importantly, there is so little ambition here - nothing concrete about returning any competences to the UK, vague talk of 'recognition', even vaguer talk of 'less bureaucracy'.
It's textbook Foreign Office stuff - a bit of cheap lipstick to smear on the face of an ugly pig
Typical UK , they don't like taking the medicine, they dole out to Scotland, when the boot is on the other foot. Hopefully EU will tell them where to go with their petty whinging.
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
I thought he had said that he would rejoin Labour in a heartbeat if Corbyn were elected. Has Labour - gasp! - rejected him? Or has George not actually applied to join?
He wants them to withdraw his dismissal from the party, saying he should never have been expelled
If he was back in the fold he'd be a good candidate here
I know what you mean but there is nothing "good" about George Galloway. IMO. I cheered when he lost his seat in May. The highlight for me.
He and his type are the purveyors of a particularly poisonous form of politics, which should have no place in this country.
Comments
Muslim and Afro-Caribbean votes overwhelmingly end up in Labour columns.
Hindu and Sikh votes are more evenly distributed.
White votes increasingly tend towards non-Labour.
I don't think there is much, if any , resonance in the idea that non-Muslim ethnic minorities vote Lib Dem. The same will apply with the Greens. These are (were) largely a certain type of white, middle class vote at their core plus students.
What is a measure of the time - and of how much things have changed in six years or so - is the current level of expectations.
It ought to be nigh-on unthinkable for Labour to lose a safe seat in opposition. That it's even being considered as a realistic possibility is proof of how weakened Labour's support is in its sometime heartlands. Yes, the SNP achieved similar gains in the past (Glasgow Govan and all that), leaving aside the post-2010 era, but not in England until very recently.
Similarly, when Labour did lose, it was to the Lib Dems; the natural party of by-elections: Leicester South and Birmingham Hodge Hill and all that. This time, the Lib Dems, relegated to the also-rans, will do very well to hold their deposit - and no-one expects anything else.
For the Conservatives, this would never have been other than a defeat waiting to happen. To finish behind UKIP would, however, have been an embarrassment. Now, there's the same strain of support from some Blue supporters for them that there once was for the Lib Dems from Labourites in safe Con seats.
And all this confirms UKIP's break into the top tier, if the lower end of it. No longer a bunch of cranks and eccentrics, they're seen as a serious player. That comes with its own dangers of under-delivery. Pre-2010, for UKIP to score a few thousand votes and finish third was a good result; now, they're expected to push Labour close.
The packaging of ethnic minorities/migrants/race as one group defined by skin colour has increasingly been dismantled post 9/11 and also by EU expansion.
It would be more accurate to say that the German banks owned tonnes of peripheral debt, and then your paragraph would be quite accurate.
On the other hand, if the 3.7% was padded out with people who quite liked Nick Clegg off the telly, then their vote share could easily halve. This will not be an election for the mildly politically engaged, nor will it be one in which the Lib Dems receive anything more than token coverage (unless their candidate does something monumentally stupid). If UKIP can build an anti-Labour bandwagon then that too will drag unaligned protest voters out of the yellow column.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/flyktningkrisen-i-europa/han-betaler-flukten-med-penger-fra-norge/a/23552252/&edit-text=&act=url
- the process which governs this exemption - I think it was brought in around 2010/11, from memory of my last foray into property.
- how easily it is changed - is it at the whim of the chancellor
- how soon could it be changed - i.e. if mentioned in Autumn statement, would the change likely apply from April 2016 onwards?
In short - I would be eligible, but wonder how much I can rely on the exemption remaining....
Is there a handbag with a Cabinet-Minister-head-shaped dent in it?
Do you suppose that Lord Ashcroft will set up a museum?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d629e00-821c-11e5-a01c-8650859a4767.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz3qQfi8efq
Key passages for me:
"Remain or leave, it is the question our democracy has demanded we put because, quite frankly, the British people do not want to be part of an ever closer union.
We will not succeed as nations by ducking the big issues, or thinking we can avoid the key questions.
We want Britain to remain in a reformed European Union.
But it needs to be a European Union that works better for all the citizens of Europe — and works better for Britain too.
It needs to be a Europe where we are not part of that ever closer union you are more comfortable with.
In the UK, where this is widely interpreted as a commitment to ever-closer political integration, that concept is now supported by a tiny minority of voters.
I believe it is this that is the cause of some of the strains between Britain and our European partners. Ever closer union is not right for us any longer."
"So how do we build a better European Union?
There are a number of changes needed to make that happen.
If freedom of movement is to be sustainable, then our publics must see it is freedom to move to work, rather than freedom to choose the most generous benefits.
If politicians are to be accountable then we’ll need to strengthen the role of national parliaments."
"As Britain’s Chancellor, in charge of economic policy, speaking to German industry, I want to focus on just two specific changes today — and ask for your support.
For I believe these changes we seek are not just in our interests — they’re in the interests of the whole European Union, including Germany.
The first concerns the strength and competitiveness of the European economy.
Europe is losing ground to the rest of the world, and the people who pay the price are our citizens...
There is a second change to the EU we need to see — we need to fix the relationship between the member states in the Eurozone and those outside, so it works better for everyone."
If PIIGS had gone to the wall back in 2010/11 then the German and French banking industries would have gone with them.
I believe it was a short term recession-easing proposal which is renewed every year or two. There is a taper from 100% at 6k to 0% at 12k.
I think the Chancellor would announce in the Autumn Statement to get earlier political capital. It is due to end in April 2016.
But I would expect it to persist, since the economy is not booming in the Small Business Sector, and it would be politically awkward to end. OTOH Business Rates are being devolved to the regions.
This consultation from last this spring may be helpful:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/business-rates-review-terms-of-reference-and-discussion-paper
A tactical, not strategic, advantage imo.
Or if you're in Britain, tea and biscuits with the FSA
The UK banks were big lenders in the overnight market to the French banks in particular.
It's the disturbing domino effect nature of all this stuff.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/DEGREES-OF-SEPARATION.pdf
Similarly, Ipsos put the Tory BME vote at 23% in May. Labour was 65%.
But if I went for it it AND the advantage remained it would be very useful saving for the first year (or maybe two) of a growing retail business....
Will take a look at consultation paper - much appreciated. Change to the regions is a possible mine in the water!
I think the doom and gloom scenario for the UK banking industry is overblown in the event of the PIIGS bankruptcy scenario. There would, of course, be some turmoil, but the UK government has proven it is willing and able to bail out even the biggest banks so I'm not convinced that people would have lost out on their uninsured deposits like they did in Cyprus or under the new bank bail in rules the EU have tried to force onto the sector.
The current temporary increase in Small Business Rate Relief, which started on 1 October 2010 and was due to end on 31 March 2015, will continue until 31 March 2016. The measure doubles the usual rate of relief so that ratepayers with rateable values below £6,000 pay no rates at all for the period, while ratepayers with rateable values between £6,000 and £12,000 receive tapered relief from 100 per cent to 0 per cent.
No special knowledge, but I'd be very surprised if the exemption was removed after March 2016. The direction of travel is to reduce business rates.
And yes, it's at the whim of the Chancellor!
[Edit: I see MattW has already answered]
Some Labour posters on here were adamant that this wasn't happening and that even if it was the Tories have bet on the wrong minority because the growth rate of Muslims is much higher than it is for other minorities, but 2015 has thrown up enough results against the grain for there to be any doubt remaining that Indian voters (either from East Africa or from India) are increasingly voting Tory regardless of their religion. That, IMO, is a cultural difference of people coming from a nation which is comfortable with success vs people from Pakistan/Bangladesh where the culture is of perpetual victim status, which plays into Labour's hands.
A City lawyer has blamed a "hot-headed moment" after calling Liverpudlians "scouse scum" in a foul-tempered interview.
Clive O'Connell, a partner in the London office of US firm Goldberg Segalla, also called them "scouse scum idiots" in the interview, which was filmed as he left Stamford Bridge following Chelsea's defeat to Liverpool. On Twitter he told a Liverpool fan, "Crawl back to your horrible Merseyside hole".
http://www.rollonfriday.com/Blogs/ReadBlog/tabid/144/Id/34717/Default.aspx
You can change your house, you can change your profession, you can change your nationality, you can even change your name, you can change your wife, you can even change political parties but you can never change your football club.
A memorandum of understanding that a future EU treaty or revision - TBC - will:
(1) include a rider clause exempting the UK from ever-closer Union
(2) have longer periods of transitional controls for any future new EU members
(3) something on freedom of movement meaning to work not claim benefits - but no 4-year period of ineligibility to claim as Cameron wanted
(4) some words saying the interests of all 28 EU members need to be considered when making EU single market rules, that no preference will be shown to eurozone businesses, and with an emergency brake option (not a red card) for non-eurozone members on any future legislation
(5) possibly something on NHS opt out from working time directive
The deal will be: you can integrate further, we won't oppose it, and we'll support an increase in the EU budget.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34705363
And that will be that. Now, please vote Remain.
It's an interesting time to critique, of course. Ireland only required support because they propped up their banks - which had engaged in a positive orgy of speculative property lending. Those guarantees meant the Irish state couldn't borrow in the market, and meant that it had to go cap in hand. Of the 90% increase in total-deb-to-GDP in Ireland, almost two-thirds was related to propping up the banks through NAMA and through privatisations.
I wonder what would have happened had Ireland not issued the guarantees to banks? Would their situation have been worse - in that there would have been an imploding banking sector? Or better, in that the solvency of the Irish state would not have been questioned?
Thinking about it a bit more, I suspect, that the French and Germans would have propped up their banks in the event of Spain or Portugal defaulting. (Italy is a little different, as the vast bulk of Italian debt is owned by Italian banks, insurance companies and pension funds; a consequence of the fact that Italy was not a "capital importer" like the other peripheral European countries.)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/row-zed/jurgen-klopp-reacts-poor-jordon-6746479
recognition that ever closer union is not for everyone;
agreement that freedom of movement is freedom to move for work, not to claim benefits.
Protection for non EZ countries in the Treaties.
A bigger role for national Parliaments.
A more integrated market for services.
Less EU bureaucracy.
Its interesting. I just wonder if there is enough time left before our referendum to get most of that.
Translation: man who runs investment bank that isn't doing very well makes transparent plea for government support.
A lot of that could be claimed as a success by making an agreement to change paper treaties at a specified/unspecified point in the future.
We have no idea whether it'd be honoured by the EU or all other member states, watered down so it's pretty meaningless, or just ignored.
"We must never let taxpayers in countries that are not in the euro bear the cost for supporting countries in the eurozone.
This is exactly what was attempted in July, when, out of the blue, in flagrant breach of the agreement we’d all signed up to, and without even the courtesy of a telephone call, we were informed we could have to pay to bail out Greece.
That would have been grossly unfair.
We have fought hard, with German help, to stop that happening — and we succeeded.
But we shouldn’t have to fight a running battle on these issues.
We need to put things on an orderly basis with agreed principles."
"We seek to make these principles permanent and legally binding — and we want to design a simple mechanism to ensure the principles are enforced. These kinds of checks and guarantees exist in other parts of the EU’s governing rules."
The British obviously think they have a mechanism for getting all this agreed and legally binding. That looks to me like more than a memorandum of understanding.
A government that attempted to rewrite the order in which assets were distributed would find itself stuck in the courts for decades.
If you look at the changes that have been made in the Eurozone post the EZ crisis, they have explicitly been going down your path, essentially moving to a structure where bond holders can be "bailed in", and the mechanism for such is transparent and clear to the person buying the bond in the first place.
agreement that freedom of movement is freedom to move for work, not to claim benefits.
Protection for non EZ countries in the Treaties.
A bigger role for national Parliaments.
A more integrated market for services.
Less EU bureaucracy.
pretty vague and unimpressive stuff, as expected.
Most importantly, there is so little ambition here - nothing concrete about returning any competences to the UK, vague talk of 'recognition', even vaguer talk of 'less bureaucracy'.
It's textbook Foreign Office stuff - a bit of cheap lipstick to smear on the face of an ugly pig
It's possible that bailout liability could be fixed formally fairly quickly but not the rest.
I could see a victorious May or Gove (big "ifs") pledging that for GE2020 if it starts to look dicey, and perhaps throwing in one or two more renegotiation demands if things really do start to head south.
The changes that have been made try to force EMU nations to protect senior bond holders at any cost, even at the cost of ordinary depositors which I think is wrong. Shareholders and bondholders should know what they are getting themselves into and the level of protection being given to senior bondholders at the expense of depositors (and the other instruments you have mentioned) is far too high. We all know why though, the main senior bondholder of most EMU banks is the ECB and forcing losses onto the ECB would be politically toxic for the EU, so as always it is politics > economics in the EU.
I said the friendship between our two countries was based on shared values. One of those values is that we don’t insist on central uniformity, but instead we respect different histories and traditions and approaches.
It is that respect for difference that has brought four nations together in one United Kingdom, and united ancient kingdoms like Saxony and Bavaria with city states like Hamburg and Bremen in the great success of the Bundesrepublik.
We should show the same respect to the difference approaches our two countries take towards the European Union.
Of course for this audience he has focused on competitiveness (which is his main interest as well), but allowing for that we can see the outline of the deal the government is proposing, which is pretty much what I've been suggesting for five years: treaty change to give them closer integration for the Eurozone, with our position protected, and a tip-toeing away of the UK from the aspects of the EU which are not necessary to the Single Market.
If Mr Cameron is recommending something that is contingent on future treaty changes, then there needs to be some mechanism for ensuring the treaty says what was in the Memorandum of Understanding. That could be a cross-party committee, or a proper second referendum. Otherwise, there is the very possible issue that the treaty looks very little like the MoU - especially as a number of the Eurozone governments that need to sign such a treaty are likely to change between now and any final treaty.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/final-reports-in-review-of-eu-balance-of-competences-published
They have (and not only them) put their belief in/love for the EU above the actual practical consequences of what the EU is doing for the citizens they profess to care about. No wonder people are so disillusioned with politicians.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/661513910206484480
Across Europe (including Switzerland, Norway and the UK), tier one capital ratios have increased from sub 5% before the Global Financial Crisis to 10-12% now.
This has been achieved in two ways: firstly, there were substantial equity raises (often with governments reaching into their own pockets - see RBS), secondly, banks largely stopped paying dividends.
We are now beginning to see bank balance sheets bolstered to a level where dividends are now being reintroduced. Commerzbank in Germany just reinstated its dividend. BNP in France now pays one. The Spanish banks, who were most aggressive in writing off bad loans and recapitalising themselves, now almost all pay dividends.
i.e. give up your money and will stick it all on black. If it comes up then we get 20%, if it doesn't then the losses are all yours.
*cough* Ackman *cough*
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335088/SingleMarketFree_MovementPersons.pdf
If he was back in the fold he'd be a good candidate here
So StanChar and Deutsche are exceptions rather than the rule?
It is remarkably easy to get behind the curve on this - and I must take some of the blame for not renewing my FT subscription this year - but it seems that the standard of non-paid for financial journalism is worsening....
I would also like to point out that the Germans *did* let a number of banks go bust. And the largest "bad banks" in Europe are the run-off portfolios of these bust banks.
Yes you are right - that is what I alluded to on here several days ago. Osborne and Cameron are 100% the playthings of the FO on this.
It should have been obvious from the moment that the FO document you link to was published that the whole renegotiation process would be a cosmetic one.
To misquote 'The Leopard' they are trying to pretend some things will change so that everything will remain the same.
Standard Chartered is not really a European bank at all. I forget off the top of my head, but its more than 90% Asian (see https://www.sc.com/annual-report/2014/documents/SCB_ARA_2014_risk_and_capital_review.pdf) for actual numbers.
It's just the European IB that's crap.
Oh.
We need facts and details and agreements signed in blood and nailed to the floor.
So never mind the ability to delay something. That's largely worthless. We need a cast-iron mechanism whereby both a majority of Euro countries and non-Euro countries have to agree something and that if the UK is the only non-Euro country it gets an effective veto.
Similarly, there must be no discrimination against countries or companies or individuals not in the eurozone. The ECJ and the EU bureaucracy must not be allowed to introduce or permit measures blocked under one route to go through another.
The Single Market in Services - a measure on which the French in particular have dragged their feet for far too long - must be implemented without delay.
Home affairs e.g. policing, justice, criminal law etc should not fall within the EU's remit at all.
The rest of the EU must accept that financial services are a key UK industry (others may suggest others) and therefore there cannot be proposals designed to or which have the effect of damaging a nation's key industries.
There may be other points but there needs to be - in addition to splendid speeches - some actual substance which benefits us and can be shown to benefit us. We need to be positively French in our determination to make the EU work for us and if the rest of the EU wants to keep us and our money in, they should be equally willing to accommodate us instead of treating us like some grumbling but rich relative who can be ignored except when it comes to birthdays and Xmas.
And on that note, off to lunch.
So they were faced with cost cuts to make them profitable, withdrawing from politically directed lending and/or chasing high risk, high yield investments.
The local politicians wouldn't let them go with cost cuts or sensible lending policies...
He and his type are the purveyors of a particularly poisonous form of politics, which should have no place in this country.