Be bonkers if Portsmouth shipyard closes before the referendum result is known.
I doubt it will - they'll still be building the QE aircraft carriers next year (Portsmouth builds the lower rear third, just in front of the stern)
I bet what'll happen is this: if independence is granted, BAE will suddenly change their mind.
The truth is, we need more foreign orders, and messes like the three Nakhoda Ragam-class corvette (built for Brunei and not accepted, now sold to the Indonesians for 1/5th the build price) does not help.
Be bonkers if Portsmouth shipyard closes before the referendum result is known.
To be clear - ship building will end at Portsmouth, but repairs and maintenance will continue.
While the MP has been curiously silent, the Council leader is kicking off:
"The leader of Portsmouth council, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, questioned why a decision was being taken before the referendum.
He told the BBC's Today programme: "Portsmouth is the last place in England that has the ability to build advanced warships for the Royal Navy and I'm very concerned that with a potential independence vote in Scotland, if Portsmouth shipbuilding is shut down, what would remain of the UK would have no ability to build advanced warships."
Clearly to us on the outside Christie is the candidate the GOP should pick, but his party - not just the Tea Party - appear by and large to loathe him. He's seen as a traitor because of his apparent support for Obama just three days before the last presidential elction.
F1: still no driver movement. Feeling seems to be that a Lotus decision could happen this week. If so, that would enable Hulkenberg or Maldonado (whoever doesn't get it) to try their luck elsewhere (probably Force India/Sauber respectively) and Massa to jump into the Williams seat Maldonado had. Di Resta and Gutierrez are probably the chaps who might lose out.
From YouGov, it is noticeable that Labour have been for some time very strong in the North with a 55% or more VI. Are they racking up votes in safe seats?
In Scotland there is much more of a battle with the SNP and much more on a par with the Cons in the Midlands. London usually favours Labour but VI has been very variable.
Seems entirely probable.
Labour vote strengthening in bucketloads in London and the North. The end of Hughes, Teather and Featherstone?
It's seemingly in decline in the Midlands and Scotland (presumably the UNITE fiasco is to blame).
One of the oddities is that the Tories are collecting more LIBLAB switchers than they are losing.
It's UKIP to the right that the Tories have to tackle.
2010 Lib Voters at close to 25% in the "undecided camp"
Would Christie get the votes in the primaries in Red states? Probably not, but he may do so in a number of blue states.
If selected, he probably has the best chance for the Republicans. Despite their nuttiness Republican Primaries do not tend to select the real headbangers. The swivel eyed loons spread their votes too thin over the field, so centrist Republicans tend to come through as candidate.
Much will depend on how pragmatic the GOP choose to be.
McCain and Romney were clearly the best of a whacky job lot and so it may prove with Christie. He also has the advantage of putting a blue state back on the table as other states like Virginia, Nevada and Ohio edge the other way.
Much depends on the voting strictures in each state. Some allow independent registered voters and even crossover Democrats to vote in GOP primaries.
The recent form is that early voting states allow themselves the luxury of voting for the whack jobs and then the race narrows to one normal human being and a representative of planet loony. Pragmatic Republicans and Conservatives then hold their nose and the humanoid wins the primary season.
Dubya wasn't from planet loony? He certainly wasn't from the one that shines brightest!
Decent poll again for Labour, which has certainly had an uptick since Miliband won the conference season. The cost of living stuff is ripe ground for the party and he should keep in that groove for the 500 or so days until the election. I was a 2010 LD - I wonder now many of those switchers have no intention whatsoever of going back, except it a tactical vote?
Meanwhile, I see NY now has a landslide commie mayor. We're all Marxists now, Rupert.
@Charles I resent this head over heart attack on me. I am just the messenger trying to produce several pieces each day when sod all is happening.
The fixed term parliament act has taken away so much of the potential for speculation this far out.
You do a great job of turning out threads 3 times a day: far better than I could do.
The problem is that most of your threads have a negative slant for the Tories. There are certainly a lot of headwinds that work against them, but there are some more positive angles to consider as well. It's these aspects that seem to get overlooked (eg narrowing Labour lead on a 12 month view). If nothing else it leads to repetative threads with parties on both sides of the fence saying the same thing over and over again.
In a strange way suggesting you are led by your heart is a compliment - because I think you are too smart about politics to have missed these signs.
As an aside, the most interesting thread in recent times was Ddavid Herdson's last weekend. More of those type of "thought pieces" vs just polling threads - acknowledging they are a lot more work - would be great
Why don't you write one on how the fundamentals favour the Tories, I'll write the opposite view.
@tim Sure - although given my schedule at the moment it won't be until late January.
@Alanbrooke - a little variety is nice, that's all. Cameron is a disappointment - a little skill, a little charm and a little luck meant he ended up promotoed well above his ability
@Pulpstar - I thought about the US piece as an alternative to David's thread. Just could remember who wrote it... ;-)
R4 Robinson says Portsmouth shipyard to close.....
Mike Hancock will aware of the electoral bonus that the LDs got from the closure of Redcar steelworks.
Presumably the effect can also work with shipyards, in reverse.
I wonder how many posts we'll get today from our friends on the left on "pork barrel politics"? Jolly good of them saving the business in a safe Labour seat where the MP wants to effectively close the yard if Scotland votes for independence.
Clearly to us on the outside Christie is the candidate the GOP should pick, but his party - not just the Tea Party - appear by and large to loathe him. He's seen as a traitor because of his apparent support for Obama just three days before the last presidential elction.
Perhaps a market on what his fighting weight will be come 2016 ?
From YouGov, it is noticeable that Labour have been for some time very strong in the North with a 55% or more VI. Are they racking up votes in safe seats?
In Scotland there is much more of a battle with the SNP and much more on a par with the Cons in the Midlands. London usually favours Labour but VI has been very variable.
Seems entirely probable.
Labour vote strengthening in bucketloads in London and the North. The end of Hughes, Teather and Featherstone?
It's seemingly in decline in the Midlands and Scotland (presumably the UNITE fiasco is to blame).
One of the oddities is that the Tories are collecting more LIBLAB switchers than they are losing.
It's UKIP to the right that the Tories have to tackle.
2010 Lib Voters at close to 25% in the "undecided camp"
I wouldn't want to be writing off Hughes just yet. He's one of the great survivors with a string personal vote. He's also quite cleverly managed to distance himself from many of the more unpopular coalition decisions. Put it this way, if the LDs lose Bermondsey they really will be in for a catastrophic night.
Ed Conway tweets: Manufacturing sector expands by 1.2% in Sep vs 1.1% forecast. Continues trend of economic data coming in (at least a bit) above expectations
Clearly to us on the outside Christie is the candidate the GOP should pick, but his party - not just the Tea Party - appear by and large to loathe him. He's seen as a traitor because of his apparent support for Obama just three days before the last presidential elction.
Perhaps a market on what his fighting weight will be come 2016 ?
He appears to have slimmed down a lot recently. He's now just hugely overweight - i.e. average for an American.
Would Christie get the votes in the primaries in Red states? Probably not, but he may do so in a number of blue states.
If selected, he probably has the best chance for the Republicans. Despite their nuttiness Republican Primaries do not tend to select the real headbangers. The swivel eyed loons spread their votes too thin over the field, so centrist Republicans tend to come through as candidate.
Much will depend on how pragmatic the GOP choose to be.
McCain and Romney were clearly the best of a whacky job lot and so it may prove with Christie. He also has the advantage of putting a blue state back on the table as other states like Virginia, Nevada and Ohio edge the other way.
Much depends on the voting strictures in each state. Some allow independent registered voters and even crossover Democrats to vote in GOP primaries.
The recent form is that early voting states allow themselves the luxury of voting for the whack jobs and then the race narrows to one normal human being and a representative of planet loony. Pragmatic Republicans and Conservatives then hold their nose and the humanoid wins the primary season.
Dubya wasn't from planet loony? He certainly wasn't from the one that shines brightest!
Quite so.
Bush was an under rated politician full of that folksy charm much admired by many US voters. However he won two tight elections at the edge of a demographic time bomb that now has exploded against the GOP. They have to address their Hispanic problem.
Interestingly Christie attracted 45% of their vote and 20% black vote last night - double the normal figure.
And Chinese companies are moving to Vietnam! Myanmar will also become a manufacturing centre now that it has opened up - the Japanese have got in there very early, apparently.
The thing about low wage economies, though, is that the productivity is generally very poor as there is no incentive to invest in mechanisation, while education levels among workforces are extremely low. As they also tend to be a fair distance from many key markets, the initial saving can rapidly melt away, especially if there are other issues too.
Less true of Vietnam, perhaps? Seemed to be quite lot of well-educated people in the cities when I was there and they have the same let's-get-on-with-it attitude that the Chinese display, possibly even more so with the energetic HCMC attitudes that have carried on since the Saigon days.
I see Mr Roy from Glenrothes 2008 is stepping down in 2015.
Nothing personal but as an example, let's assume he's got 7 years accrued service in the MP pension scheme at that time and base salary is say £60k. Then 1/40 accrual = 7/40 x £60k for life which is £10,500pa with 50% spouse, inflation-linked benefits.
There may even be 3x this as a tax free lump sum straight from the taxpayer as there is with the NHS old scheme but not sure so let's say not. Also don't know the MP commutation factor for more tax free cash versus less taxable pension income - would be interested to know that. Often it's a measly 9 to 12 in DB pensions but would like to know what MP's get?
Someone in the private sector would need circa £300,000 to get that £10,500pa - saving approx. £40,000pa in those 7 years.
...
It's a disgrace.
Don't know of a tax-free lump sum, so assume not. I've never checked what the tax-free vs less pension deal is, but was told it was average. There is however a small snag in the scheme - the benefit is not adjusted for inflation after you leave until you actually take the pension, which for the full amount requires being 65 and promising not to stand again. This means that people who leave Parliament relatively young will see their apparently handsome pension evaporate in real terms. (Thus financially it's probably not in my interest to win in 2015, but then if money was decisive I'd still be in Switzerland and able to take holidays with SeanT, meh.)
The offer ends tomorrow, so I thought I'd mention it before it expires.
When Sir Edric Greenlock, the Hero of Hornska, is summoned to attend the King in the dead of night he fears imminent execution. Committing adultery is frowned upon in King Lawrence’s domains, especially when it’s with Lawrence’s wife. The King, however, has something else in mind. Priceless royal treasures have been stolen, and the King dispatches Sir Edric to retrieve them in a mission that could optimistically be described as suicidal.
Along the way he’ll battle rockheaded golems, terrible sorcery and the Ursk: a race of brutal slavers who consider humans to be a sort of edible currency.
Accompanied by his pathologically loyal manservant Dog, the prudish elf Lysandra, and a man called Colin, he must travel to the Unholy Temple to retrieve the royal treasures from a mysterious thief.
I think I heard what is possibly the most stupid remark I've ever heard on the Today programme this morning (and that is saying something). Normally I wouldn't mention it, but it's an interesting stupid remark because it's perhaps part of a politically-significant rewrite of history.
The fool who made the remark was Neal Lawson, who (you would have thought) should know better. What he said, apparently in all seriousness, was that the state had withdrawn from regulation of the financial industry in the lead-up to the financial crash.
Is this part of a pattern? Are the left trying now to claim that one of the most draconian, bureaucratic, expensive and detailed systems of financial regulation ever devised by man never existed?
From YouGov, it is noticeable that Labour have been for some time very strong in the North with a 55% or more VI. Are they racking up votes in safe seats?
In Scotland there is much more of a battle with the SNP and much more on a par with the Cons in the Midlands. London usually favours Labour but VI has been very variable.
Seems entirely probable.
Labour vote strengthening in bucketloads in London and the North. The end of Hughes, Teather and Featherstone?
It's seemingly in decline in the Midlands and Scotland (presumably the UNITE fiasco is to blame).
One of the oddities is that the Tories are collecting more LIBLAB switchers than they are losing.
It's UKIP to the right that the Tories have to tackle.
2010 Lib Voters at close to 25% in the "undecided camp"
Financier wants to avoid the huge marginals poll and rely on sub samples, quelle surprise
Yet again you are wrong and try to make yourself look clever by putting words into people's mouths that they did not say.
I was just commenting on the trends shown by YouGov which is the most frequent poll that we have. The only finite view can be given by a seat-by-seat analysis and that would only be a view at a moment in time.
Underestimate the leverage squad at your peril tim - you'd best stay on message if you know what is good for you.
The great thing about British politics, as Mike points out upthread
"We've yet to see much of an Anti-LAB party because CON voters seem to have been reluctant in the past to vote tactically. This is one of the reasons why the electoral system seems to be biased against the Tories. CON voters are more ready to waste their vote."
Is that Labour has a secret army of Tory dullards ready to fight their cause without being asked. And even better, they then whine about how the electoral system is unfair.
tim - outside of your Unite/Labour sad little Marxist world it really isn't good form to bully people into voting a certain way - it's just not the way its done old chap.
I think I heard what is possibly the most stupid remark I've ever heard on the Today programme this morning (and that is saying something). Normally I wouldn't mention it, but it's an interesting stupid remark because it's perhaps part of a politically-significant rewrite of history.
The fool who made the remark was Neal Lawson, who (you would have thought) should know better. What he said, apparently in all seriousness, was that the state had withdrawn from regulation of the financial industry in the lead-up to the financial crash.
Is this part of a pattern? Are the left trying now to claim that one of the most draconian, bureaucratic, expensive and detailed systems of financial regulation ever devised by man never existed?
You are confusing me, Richard.
I thought it was widely accepted that a contributory factor to the crash was Gordon Brown's deregulation of the City, the 'lightness of touch' which he was fond of advertsing before it all went pear-shaped.
It is one of the mistakes for which he is (correctly) condemned, no?
Underestimate the leverage squad at your peril tim - you'd best stay on message if you know what is good for you.
The great thing about British politics, as Mike points out upthread
"We've yet to see much of an Anti-LAB party because CON voters seem to have been reluctant in the past to vote tactically. This is one of the reasons why the electoral system seems to be biased against the Tories. CON voters are more ready to waste their vote."
Is that Labour has a secret army of Tory dullards ready to fight their cause without being asked. And even better, they then whine about how the electoral system is unfair.
tim - outside of your Unite/Labour sad little Marxist world it really isn't good form to bully people into voting a certain way - it's just not the way its done old chap.
No bullying required. Labours secret army of Tories voting for no hope Tories is a voluntary rather than a conscription force. You weren't press ganged
You've lost the economic argument as the economy is booming - so its just personal insults now - everyone has noticed it.
Clearly to us on the outside Christie is the candidate the GOP should pick, but his party - not just the Tea Party - appear by and large to loathe him. He's seen as a traitor because of his apparent support for Obama just three days before the last presidential elction.
Perhaps a market on what his fighting weight will be come 2016 ?
He appears to have slimmed down a lot recently. He's now just hugely overweight - i.e. average for an American.
Apparently he's had stomach surgery.
Shame really, because I quite like rotund politicians,but if it was a question of his health....
Looks like we may have a contest between two whose health is problematic - Clinton and Christie. Odds on who croaks first....? No, no,...bad taste.....forget it.
Underestimate the leverage squad at your peril tim - you'd best stay on message if you know what is good for you.
The great thing about British politics, as Mike points out upthread
"We've yet to see much of an Anti-LAB party because CON voters seem to have been reluctant in the past to vote tactically. This is one of the reasons why the electoral system seems to be biased against the Tories. CON voters are more ready to waste their vote."
Is that Labour has a secret army of Tory dullards ready to fight their cause without being asked. And even better, they then whine about how the electoral system is unfair.
tim - outside of your Unite/Labour sad little Marxist world it really isn't good form to bully people into voting a certain way - it's just not the way its done old chap.
Take it you've never canvassed for the Libs or LD's in a primarily Con seat where Lab were the challengers. "Quasi Socialists letting Labour in" were about as kind as it got. I haven't canvassed recently but you'd think we'd never taken a single vote off L:about. Interestingly Labour were generally by no means as hostile, even when defending!
I thought it was widely accepted that a contributory factor to the crash was Gordon Brown's deregulation of the City, the 'lightness of touch' which he was fond of advertsing before it all went pear-shaped.
It is one of the mistakes for which he is (correctly) condemned, no?
There was no 'deregulation' - the exact opposite. The FSA was a super-regulator employing over 3,000 people, not to mention the armies of compliance officers within banks whose entire job was to ensure that the incredibly detailed regulations were adhered to. Every single employee doing any banking role had to be licensed (at considerable cost), and for that they had to pass ludicrous exams. To say that the state wasn't regulating the financial service industry is absolutely barmy. If anything, the US regulatory system was even bigger and even more bureaucratic.
Of course, all this box-ticking activity, interference and micro-management completely missed the point (as Peter Lilley warned it would). But it certainly existed, big-time.
I think I heard what is possibly the most stupid remark I've ever heard on the Today programme this morning (and that is saying something). Normally I wouldn't mention it, but it's an interesting stupid remark because it's perhaps part of a politically-significant rewrite of history.
The fool who made the remark was Neal Lawson, who (you would have thought) should know better. What he said, apparently in all seriousness, was that the state had withdrawn from regulation of the financial industry in the lead-up to the financial crash.
Is this part of a pattern? Are the left trying now to claim that one of the most draconian, bureaucratic, expensive and detailed systems of financial regulation ever devised by man never existed?
You are confusing me, Richard.
I thought it was widely accepted that a contributory factor to the crash was Gordon Brown's deregulation of the City, the 'lightness of touch' which he was fond of advertsing before it all went pear-shaped.
It is one of the mistakes for which he is (correctly) condemned, no?
It was intrusive and bureaucratic, but focused on the wrong things. And no one regulator had responsibility for the things that actually mattered - financial stability and the soundness of banks.
Interestingly, though, having through the tripartate scheme was Brown's plan all along, it looks like it may have been Eddie George's fault (at least according to Iain Martin). Brown intended to move all regulatory responsibility to the FSA but George - who hadn't been consulted - threatened to resign. Hence the hastily cooked up tripartate scheme.
On balance I think the proposed new system - spliting consumer protection from systemic risk - is the right way to go because you are trying to protect against very different things. Another of those "boring but important" things the Tories are doing and not getting any credit for.
Someone elected for 13 years is looking at circa £20,000pa which is worth £600,000 or more...
Imagine the leverage on their pensions if they do raise their salary to say £80k as well...
No wonder there's so many MPs still and of course so many PPCs!!
It's a disgrace.
And it looks like Cameron will u-turn on his plans to move MPs to a DC scheme.
Agreed - it's a super-off balance sheet perk which is harder to hammer than expenses were.
Thanks to Andrea for saying they can exchange up to 25% of the capital value as tax free cash but that then begs the question, how do they value that benefit - is it for example 20 20x the DB income - so let's say £10,000pa pension is 'worth' £200,000, they can take £50k as a tax free lump sum - how much of their taxable income do they lose for that, is it £2,500pa?
If so that's then the 20x commutation factor whic compares to normal public sector rates of circa 9 to 13..... nice if so for the MPs!!
NP - I'm intrigued there's no revaluation up to scheme retirement age after the pension benefit becomes deferred. Are you sure? If so you are right if someone retires before age of 50 say then they'd see the real benefits eroded significantly... rather less so if within 10 years or so however. Also then if they re-enter at a later date as an MP are the benefits revalued at that time anyway and just service continued based on the latest salary so they don't lose out provided they are re-elected in time?
As a client of mine, I'd be wanting you to find this out - if only because it might incur an Annual allowance tax charge for you if you re-join!!! But hey, likely to still be worth it.
Someone elected for 13 years is looking at circa £20,000pa which is worth £600,000 or more...
Imagine the leverage on their pensions if they do raise their salary to say £80k as well...
No wonder there's so many MPs still and of course so many PPCs!!
It's a disgrace.
And it looks like Cameron will u-turn on his plans to move MPs to a DC scheme.
Agreed - it's a super-off balance sheet perk which is harder to hammer than expenses were.
Thanks to Andrea for saying they can exchange up to 25% of the capital value as tax free cash but that then begs the question, how do they value that benefit - is it for example 20 20x the DB income - so let's say £10,000pa pension is 'worth' £200,000, they can take £50k as a tax free lump sum - how much of their taxable income do they lose for that, is it £2,500pa?
If so that's then the 20x commutation factor whic compares to normal public sector rates of circa 9 to 13..... nice if so for the MPs!!
NP - I'm intrigued there's no revaluation up to scheme retirement age after the pension benefit becomes deferred. Are you sure? If so you are right if someone retires before age of 50 say then they'd see the real benefits eroded significantly... rather less so if within 10 years or so however. Also then if they re-enter at a later date as an MP are the benefits revalued at that time anyway and just service continued based on the latest salary so they don't lose out provided they are re-elected in time?
As a client of mine, I'd be wanting you to find this out - if only because it might incur an Annual allowance tax charge for you if you re-join!!! But hey, likely to still be worth it.
Simply make the change for from the 2020 GE - yet there is 5 more years of troughing but easy to get through now.
Underestimate the leverage squad at your peril tim - you'd best stay on message if you know what is good for you.
The great thing about British politics, as Mike points out upthread
"We've yet to see much of an Anti-LAB party because CON voters seem to have been reluctant in the past to vote tactically. This is one of the reasons why the electoral system seems to be biased against the Tories. CON voters are more ready to waste their vote."
Is that Labour has a secret army of Tory dullards ready to fight their cause without being asked. And even better, they then whine about how the electoral system is unfair.
tim - outside of your Unite/Labour sad little Marxist world it really isn't good form to bully people into voting a certain way - it's just not the way its done old chap.
No bullying required. Labours secret army of Tories voting for no hope Tories is a voluntary rather than a conscription force. You weren't press ganged
You've lost the economic argument as the economy is booming - so its just personal insults now - everyone has noticed it.
18 months of this - gawd how depressing.
We've gone from no growth to wrong growth and concurrent economic bubble.
Labour opposition's "new economic cycle theory" 101.
Underestimate the leverage squad at your peril tim - you'd best stay on message if you know what is good for you.
The great thing about British politics, as Mike points out upthread
"We've yet to see much of an Anti-LAB party because CON voters seem to have been reluctant in the past to vote tactically. This is one of the reasons why the electoral system seems to be biased against the Tories. CON voters are more ready to waste their vote."
Is that Labour has a secret army of Tory dullards ready to fight their cause without being asked. And even better, they then whine about how the electoral system is unfair.
tim - outside of your Unite/Labour sad little Marxist world it really isn't good form to bully people into voting a certain way - it's just not the way its done old chap.
No bullying required. Labours secret army of Tories voting for no hope Tories is a voluntary rather than a conscription force. You weren't press ganged
You've lost the economic argument as the economy is booming - so its just personal insults now - everyone has noticed it.
18 months of this - gawd how depressing.
Yes the polls are really bad, hence the PB Tories determination to concentrate on them rather than inventing conspiracy theories about the Labour Uncut website being taken down
tim - you are quite ridiculous sometimes with these PB Tories. It was a piss-take, the most obvious one since making Alan Johnson the shadow chancellor.
Underestimate the leverage squad at your peril tim - you'd best stay on message if you know what is good for you.
The great thing about British politics, as Mike points out upthread
"We've yet to see much of an Anti-LAB party because CON voters seem to have been reluctant in the past to vote tactically. This is one of the reasons why the electoral system seems to be biased against the Tories. CON voters are more ready to waste their vote."
Is that Labour has a secret army of Tory dullards ready to fight their cause without being asked. And even better, they then whine about how the electoral system is unfair for years and years
ROFL, we've already established that the wondrous tactical votes on the left were the deciding factor in Cameron being PM.
If 2010 LD switchers ( pissed off Labour voters ) had voted for Brown he'd have had about 306 seats and be PM not Dave.Bigging up lefty stupidity doesn't make it smart.
Underestimate the leverage squad at your peril tim - you'd best stay on message if you know what is good for you.
The great thing about British politics, as Mike points out upthread
"We've yet to see much of an Anti-LAB party because CON voters seem to have been reluctant in the past to vote tactically. This is one of the reasons why the electoral system seems to be biased against the Tories. CON voters are more ready to waste their vote."
Is that Labour has a secret army of Tory dullards ready to fight their cause without being asked. And even better, they then whine about how the electoral system is unfair.
tim - outside of your Unite/Labour sad little Marxist world it really isn't good form to bully people into voting a certain way - it's just not the way its done old chap.
No bullying required. Labours secret army of Tories voting for no hope Tories is a voluntary rather than a conscription force. You weren't press ganged
You've lost the economic argument as the economy is booming - so its just personal insults now - everyone has noticed it.
18 months of this - gawd how depressing.
We've gone from no growth to wrong growth and concurrent economic bubble.
Labour opposition's "new economic cycle theory" 101.
As the economy soars to the sky , Labour are on the ground stamping their feet - see resident "Captain Bringdown" for lolz.
I think I heard what is possibly the most stupid remark I've ever heard on the Today programme this morning (and that is saying something). Normally I wouldn't mention it, but it's an interesting stupid remark because it's perhaps part of a politically-significant rewrite of history.
The fool who made the remark was Neal Lawson, who (you would have thought) should know better. What he said, apparently in all seriousness, was that the state had withdrawn from regulation of the financial industry in the lead-up to the financial crash.
Is this part of a pattern? Are the left trying now to claim that one of the most draconian, bureaucratic, expensive and detailed systems of financial regulation ever devised by man never existed?
You are confusing me, Richard.
I thought it was widely accepted that a contributory factor to the crash was Gordon Brown's deregulation of the City, the 'lightness of touch' which he was fond of advertsing before it all went pear-shaped.
It is one of the mistakes for which he is (correctly) condemned, no?
It was intrusive and bureaucratic, but focused on the wrong things. And no one regulator had responsibility for the things that actually mattered - financial stability and the soundness of banks.
Interestingly, though, having through the tripartate scheme was Brown's plan all along, it looks like it may have been Eddie George's fault (at least according to Iain Martin). Brown intended to move all regulatory responsibility to the FSA but George - who hadn't been consulted - threatened to resign. Hence the hastily cooked up tripartate scheme.
On balance I think the proposed new system - spliting consumer protection from systemic risk - is the right way to go because you are trying to protect against very different things. Another of those "boring but important" things the Tories are doing and not getting any credit for.
So, did he loosen controls, or didn't he?
I believe he did, and if I am wrong, so are a number of well-regarded commentators.
I have heard the Eddie George story before, and it has the ring of truth.
Underestimate the leverage squad at your peril tim - you'd best stay on message if you know what is good for you.
The great thing about British politics, as Mike points out upthread
"We've yet to see much of an Anti-LAB party because CON voters seem to have been reluctant in the past to vote tactically. This is one of the reasons why the electoral system seems to be biased against the Tories. CON voters are more ready to waste their vote."
Is that Labour has a secret army of Tory dullards ready to fight their cause without being asked. And even better, they then whine about how the electoral system is unfair.
tim - outside of your Unite/Labour sad little Marxist world it really isn't good form to bully people into voting a certain way - it's just not the way its done old chap.
No bullying required. Labours secret army of Tories voting for no hope Tories is a voluntary rather than a conscription force. You weren't press ganged
You've lost the economic argument as the economy is booming - so its just personal insults now - everyone has noticed it.
18 months of this - gawd how depressing.
Yes the polls are really bad, hence the PB Tories determination to concentrate on them rather than inventing conspiracy theories about the Labour Uncut website being taken down
tim - you are quite ridiculous sometimes with these PB Tories. It was a piss-take, the most obvious one since making Alan Johnson the shadow chancellor.
Phew, now I understand how Lansley happened.
Indeed or of course the hilarious peak of "No more [tory] BOOM and BUST"
On balance I think the proposed new system - spliting consumer protection from systemic risk - is the right way to go because you are trying to protect against very different things. Another of those "boring but important" things the Tories are doing and not getting any credit for.
One astonishing feature of the whole disaster is that the FSA didn't even manage to do the consumer-protection bit half competently. We all know about the PPI and other scandals - another one which is bubbling under the surface is the interest-rate swap scandal (basically small businesses were sold complex products which effectively were a bit like a spread bet on interest rates on the downside, sometimes sprung on them at the last minute as a condition of getting a loan).
As a consumer, there's actually only one rule you need in financial services: if they're very keen to sell you something, don't buy it.
I thought it was widely accepted that a contributory factor to the crash was Gordon Brown's deregulation of the City, the 'lightness of touch' which he was fond of advertsing before it all went pear-shaped.
It is one of the mistakes for which he is (correctly) condemned, no?
There was no 'deregulation' - the exact opposite. The FSA was a super-regulator employing over 3,000 people, not to mention the armies of compliance officers within banks whose entire job was to ensure that the incredibly detailed regulations were adhered to. Every single employee doing any banking role had to be licensed (at considerable cost), and for that they had to pass ludicrous exams. To say that the state wasn't regulating the financial service industry is absolutely barmy. If anything, the US regulatory system was even bigger and even more bureaucratic.
Of course, all this box-ticking activity, interference and micro-management completely missed the point (as Peter Lilley warned it would). But it certainly existed, big-time.
Yes, I can see that we had a large and ineffectual bureaucracy, but I'm sure I am right in thinking that one of the big attractions of London as a financial centre at the time was the lightness of the regulatory touch. Why otherwise would it have been so popular with financial institutions? How otherwise would the Banks have got away with behaving like cowboys - and pretty inept ones at that?
On balance I think the proposed new system - spliting consumer protection from systemic risk - is the right way to go because you are trying to protect against very different things. Another of those "boring but important" things the Tories are doing and not getting any credit for.
One astonishing feature of the whole disaster is that the FSA didn't even manage to do the consumer-protection bit half competently. We all know about the PPI and other scandals - another one which is bubbling under the surface is the interest-rate swap scandal (basically small businesses were sold complex products which effectively were a bit like a spread bet on interest rates on the downside, sometimes sprung on them at the last minute as a condition of getting a loan).
As a consumer, there's actually only one rule you need in financial services: if they're very keen to sell you something, don't buy it.
The FSA was a monster, trusting the bankers as good chaps but thinking it was IFAs which posed the biggest risk to consumer detriment.... Sants once delighted in telling us we should be afraid of them.
I believe the the FCA have already admitted the were spending too much time on IFAs and the much loved RDR where coincidentally all the biggest fans of that work then promptly left the regulator as quick as they could line up new jobs with the banks leaving the FCA to report on whether it's worked out well or not.
I don't mind it as the RDR has knocked out 20%+ of my direct competition and over 60% of the banking 'advice' competition.....
I buy the incompetence bit, Richard, not the 'lightness of touch'.
It was supposed to be one of London's big advantages. Sure was - for some.
It would be a big mistake to draw the wrong lesson - what is needed is not more regulation, but more intelligent supervision. That could well include less regulation (for example, why on earth do financial advisers working on acquisitions amongst non-listed companies need to be regulated at all?)
On balance I think the proposed new system - spliting consumer protection from systemic risk - is the right way to go because you are trying to protect against very different things. Another of those "boring but important" things the Tories are doing and not getting any credit for.
One astonishing feature of the whole disaster is that the FSA didn't even manage to do the consumer-protection bit half competently. We all know about the PPI and other scandals - another one which is bubbling under the surface is the interest-rate swap scandal (basically small businesses were sold complex products which effectively were a bit like a spread bet on interest rates on the downside, sometimes sprung on them at the last minute as a condition of getting a loan).
As a consumer, there's actually only one rule you need in financial services: if they're very keen to sell you something, don't buy it.
There was what seemed to be a good discussion on this Parliament the other day, led by Guto Bebb, who apparently has led on this issue. I came across it by accident and was fascinated. There was widespread, and all-party, condemnation of the apparent attitude of bank staff, and one LD MP commented that it appeared that no SME operator seeking a loan should go to see their bank manager in those circumstances without their accountant. Basically because it was widely accepted in the House that bank staff were acting in the interest of the bank, not the customer, and indeed, that if there was a conflict, it was the bank's interest which they promoted. Once upon a time I studied the definition of a "professional" and there was a serious conflict between what I understood (and still believe to be the case) and the way "professional" bank staff acted! Invidious comparisons were made with used car salespersons!
"Shipbuilding is to end at at the historic BAE systems dockyard in Portsmouth but the decison will be reversed if Scotland votes for independence, Downing Street sources said."
Well, greater competence is always needed, in any sphere, Richard.
The point of disagreement here is the extent of control - and I mean control, not bureaucratic interference. Unless I am very wrong, Brown loosened controls. London became for a while a shining example of the benefits of a light regualtory touch.
Are you telling me that it became such a popular financial centre not because the controls were light, but because the regulators were incompetent?
Well, greater competence is always needed, in any sphere, Richard.
The point of disagreement here is the extent of control - and I mean control, not bureaucratic interference. Unless I am very wrong, Brown loosened controls. London became for a while a shining example of the benefits of a light regualtory touch.
Are you telling me that it became such a popular financial centre not because the controls were light, but because the regulators were incompetent?
Doesn't even pass the smell test.
No, it became a popular financial centre because over many years the City has achieved critical mass on a whole range of related services, with a well-established and stable legal system, the right time zone, an open economy free of protectionism, and, yes, a regulatory environment which, though bureaucratic and expensive, was manageable.
Don't forget that, with the exception of RBS, the UK banks which actually got into trouble (Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, HBOS, Lloyds and now the Coop) were actually boring retail banks with no significant investment bank operations. The same is true of some of the other toxic banks in Ireland, Germany and Spain.
There were some things that were regulated in New York but not in London. The big problem though was activities which were either completely unregulated (the shadow banking system) or regulated very badly as the nature of the activity was clearly not understood
I believe he did, and if I am wrong, so are a number of well-regarded commentators.
I have heard the Eddie George story before, and it has the ring of truth.
Basically he imposed a massive bunch of regulation that didn't work and introduced a compliance rather than a judgement based approach. He also hamstrung the bits of rehgulation that did work historically.
Regulation in financial services should be prudential based, focused on key business principles and have massive penalities for firms and individuals that transgress. Brown's system had none of that.
(As an aside, one of my cousins was telling me about regulation when he was a director of a bank back in the 50s and 60s. It basically involved regulators coming over for lunch with the board 4 times a year - and spending it asking about which of their competitors they were worried about / who they thought was over-trading or taking on too much risk. If you make an adjustment for any prejudices/game playing that's not actually a bad strategy for figuring out what is going on.
Dr. Spyn, I read, some years ago, that a pet goat can reduce household waste by something huge (2/3, I think) simply because they can eat so much stuff (orange peel, for example). And they can mow the lawn.
Dr. Spyn, I read, some years ago, that a pet goat can reduce household waste by something huge (2/3, I think) simply because they can eat so much stuff (orange peel, for example). And they can mow the lawn.
A former neighbour of mine, employed by the council to mow a piece of ground, bought a goat instead.
"Our cattle have become an everyday city sight on Cambridge's many commons and meadows, where they are free to wander, sleep, and feed as they please. This provides the conscientious consumers of Cambridge with the rare opportunity to see exactly where their beef comes from, and the high quality of the cattles' lives."
Plus, goats can provide milk and cheese (and, some of them, cashmere), as well as being less liable to strike. Goats are also not affiliated with Labour and played no role in Ed Miliband's leadership bid.
Plus, goats can provide milk and cheese (and, some of them, cashmere), as well as being less liable to strike. Goats are also not affiliated with Labour and played no role in Ed Miliband's leadership bid.
Livestock also can't be "leveraged" to go on strike to suit a Marxist agenda - no wonder the left hate 'em.
Plus, goats can provide milk and cheese (and, some of them, cashmere), as well as being less liable to strike. Goats are also not affiliated with Labour and played no role in Ed Miliband's leadership bid.
Instead of the council composting food waste - why not a return to the local piggery.
Not necessarily a silly idea, as long as it is safe (e.g. no cattle straying onto roads, health issues).
The National Trust does it in some places, often with rare breeds. Cattle causes much less harm to the underlying ground than heavy tractors, and help the growth of wild flowers etc from both ends, as it were.
The other Portsmouth MP will not be thrilled either - Shipman: "How long will Penny Mordaunt, Naval reservist, remain PPS to Hammond? Govt failure to build ships in Portsmouth just killed her re-election."
I had two goats - they eat everything and bar being stubborn are exceptionally good and pretty clever pets.
I'd recommend them - they need to be heavily chaperoned if you have areas where you don't want them doing a garden piranha - they consume the whole Petri dish.
Dr. Spyn, I read, some years ago, that a pet goat can reduce household waste by something huge (2/3, I think) simply because they can eat so much stuff (orange peel, for example). And they can mow the lawn.
A former neighbour of mine, employed by the council to mow a piece of ground, bought a goat instead.
I believe he did, and if I am wrong, so are a number of well-regarded commentators.
I have heard the Eddie George story before, and it has the ring of truth.
Basically he imposed a massive bunch of regulation that didn't work and introduced a compliance rather than a judgement based approach. He also hamstrung the bits of rehgulation that did work historically.
Regulation in financial services should be prudential based, focused on key business principles and have massive penalities for firms and individuals that transgress. Brown's system had none of that.
(As an aside, one of my cousins was telling me about regulation when he was a director of a bank back in the 50s and 60s. It basically involved regulators coming over for lunch with the board 4 times a year - and spending it asking about which of their competitors they were worried about / who they thought was over-trading or taking on too much risk. If you make an adjustment for any prejudices/game playing that's not actually a bad strategy for figuring out what is going on.
Hmmm....so London's popularity as a financial centre grew because it had a highly intrusive and bureaucratic regulatory regime which didn't work, and not because of a genuine loosening of controls? You're sounding as plausible as RichardN!
I like your lunch anecdote though and am inclined to agree with you, not least because of my experience of auditors who spent their days ticking boxes whilst failing to notice the milkman couldn't paid. (That's a real example, in case you were wondering.)
Plus, goats can provide milk and cheese (and, some of them, cashmere), as well as being less liable to strike. Goats are also not affiliated with Labour and played no role in Ed Miliband's leadership bid.
Instead of the council composting food waste - why not a return to the local piggery.
I'm sure Unite's leverage squad could find a use for a piggery - dissenters and those who do not vote as they say...
In many areas sheep are used to graze churchyards - a bit less aggressive than goats - and they get at bits that are difficult to reach with a mower.
There's a great book by Polly Devlin called "A year in the life of an English meadow", where she describes trying to preserve and extend a meadow. It requires a surprising amount of work, and judicious use of a small flock of sheep.
That's the problem with land: even wild lands often require a great deal of management for them to remain truly wild.
"Shipbuilding operations will end in Portsmouth in the second half of next year, but an engineering team will be retained to support the new Type 26 warships, which will be built in Glasgow. "
I'd quite like a Britain with more animals and less people to be perfectly frank
And talking of animals, Pulpstar....
They've been running quite well for me recently,although this hasn't always been evident from the tips I have posted here. Sometimes I just don't have the time to post, and that's been the case with a few successful days recently. Anyway, here's what I am on today, all to light stakes.
Kempton 4.30 Gay Marriage 8/1 ew 5.00 Seek A Star 9/2 ew 5.30 Nave 8/1 ew 7.00 Urban Dance 11/4 win 7.30 Horsted Keynes 6/4 win
I'm keen to oppose the favorites in the first two races. In the 7.30, I also like Chookie Royale at 5/1. I backed it last time out when it should have won but got a bad ride. Not sure this is its right distance though. Will probably do the forecast anyway.
When I was growing up in the 1950s in a village, my mother owned an adjacent dairy farm, Among the outbuildings was a series of piggeries and apparently since the start of WW2, pigs had been kept there and were fed mainly from the scraps and peelings from the rest of the village - I remember a big bin left at the farm gate for the villagers to leave their kitchen waste.
The local butcher slaughtered the pigs (and kept some pork for his fee) and the people in the village had pork or bacon joint, as we slaughtered about one or more pigs a month. All done without any government supervision or EU interference and a very little cost to anyone.
Also we had a cider orchard with press and storage vats and people brought their own apples and bottles and had free juice or cider.
Simon Israel tweets: Police & home office lose crucial case over use of schedule 7 powers to detain and question at ports. Denying access to lawyer is unlawful
Rejoicing at Guardian towers - have they confirmed yet they did send British operative's names to the NYT?
Looks like the MOD have cocked up the BAe announcement:
"Some are tearing their hair out about the way it has been announced.
One senior Whitehall source blamed the MOD and thought that they were guilty of portraying this as Portsmouth being sacrificed on the altar of the independence referendum.
The truth, the source said, was actually that Govan was always the jewel in the BAE ship-building crown, and with Scotstoun literally just across the river from it, had advantages that everyone knew Portsmouth would struggle to match when the day came for the aircraft carrier work to diminish.
“We saw this coming five or six years ago, ” one Westminster source said, but the way it leaked out has been “over-spun” and “risks giving Alex Salmond the credit” – ie, his referendum has saved Govan’s bacon.
One source said it had echoes of the leak suspected to have come from the MOD, which floated the idea that the UK-rump might try to keep its nuclear subs at Faslane as some kind of Cyprus-style sovereign base even if the Scots voted for independence.
Basically he imposed a massive bunch of regulation that didn't work and introduced a compliance rather than a judgement based approach. He also hamstrung the bits of rehgulation that did work historically.
Regulation in financial services should be prudential based, focused on key business principles and have massive penalities for firms and individuals that transgress. Brown's system had none of that.
(As an aside, one of my cousins was telling me about regulation when he was a director of a bank back in the 50s and 60s. It basically involved regulators coming over for lunch with the board 4 times a year - and spending it asking about which of their competitors they were worried about / who they thought was over-trading or taking on too much risk. If you make an adjustment for any prejudices/game playing that's not actually a bad strategy for figuring out what is going on.
The historic (chaps talking to chaps) approach barely worked in the past -- it failed to prevent, for example, the fringe banking crisis, Barings, Johnson-Matthey or BCCI-- and would be completely unsuitable for today's environment.
A quick glance at recent problems like the London Whale shows the real barrier to effective regulation. If the bank itself, and the bank's own risk management team do not know what is going on -- and we can safely assume that JPMorgan, UBS and the like did not set out to lose billions -- then how on earth is the regulator, whether based in the City or Canary Wharf, expected to know?
Then if we go back to the global meltdown, we see another problem. The mathematical modelling of opaque (sometimes deliberately so) financial instruments was pants.
The global meltdown and earlier crises such as Long Term Credit show yet another problem -- lack of transparency, leading to liquidity crises. When the balloon does go up, everyone assumes the worst so becomes reluctant to deal, even though, granted an omniscient overlord, losses could be contained by netting off liabilities.
The idea that Gordon Brown is responsible for any of this is ludicrous, and now the 2010 election is behind us, perhaps we can move on. It is a truism there was regulatory failure, because there really was a financial crisis, but that is not the same as saying that any reasonable alternative regulatory regime could have prevented it.
I'd quite like a Britain with more animals and less people to be perfectly frank
And talking of animals, Pulpstar....
They've been running quite well for me recently,although this hasn't always been evident from the tips I have posted here. Sometimes I just don't have the time to post, and that's been the case with a few successful days recently. Anyway, here's what I am on today, all to light stakes.
Kempton 4.30 Gay Marriage 8/1 ew 5.00 Seek A Star 9/2 ew 5.30 Nave 8/1 ew 7.00 Urban Dance 11/4 win 7.30 Horsted Keynes 6/4 win
I'm keen to oppose the favorites in the first two races. In the 7.30, I also like Chookie Royale at 5/1. I backed it last time out when it should have won but got a bad ride. Not sure this is its right distance though. Will probably do the forecast anyway.
A quick glance at recent problems like the London Whale shows the real barrier to effective regulation. If the bank itself, and the bank's own risk management team do not know what is going on -- and we can safely assume that JPMorgan, UBS and the like did not set out to lose billions -- then how on earth is the regulator, whether based in the City or Canary Wharf, expected to know?
At the risk of getting all philosophical the banks probably knew, or should have known, that they didn't know what was going on, and the regulators should have known that they didn't know what was going on, of failing that that they didn't know whether they knew what was going on. It's a choice to get involved in something that you can't possibly understand, and making that choice probably points to bad incentives.
The banks may not have set out to lose billions, but they were willing to accept that as one of the possible outcomes. Warren Buffett was talking about how banks and insurers had no way to tell how much they were exposing themselves to back in 2002: http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/09/cx_aw_0509derivatives.html
Many of the LD-LAB switchers are not natural supporters of either party. Rather they are part of that "party" that we don't often discuss - the Anti-CON party. They go with which ever party in their constituency looks best able to beat the Tories.
We've yet to see much of an Anti-LAB party because CON voters seem to have been reluctant in the past to vote tactically. This is one of the reasons why the electoral system seems to be biased against the Tories. CON voters are more ready to waste their vote.
I could see Conservatives voting tactically for Nick Clegg. Other than him, though, Lib Dem candidates in Lib Dem/Lab marginals tend to be on the Left of the Party. As a result, Conservatives have nothing to gain by voting tactically for them.
If UKIP were able to establish themselves in some Labour-held seats (say, Rotherham, or similar seats) then I could then see the Conservative vote collapsing in their favour.
The idea that Gordon Brown is responsible for any of this is ludicrous, and now the 2010 election is behind us, perhaps we can move on. It is a truism there was regulatory failure, because there really was a financial crisis, but that is not the same as saying that any reasonable alternative regulatory regime could have prevented it.
Your own post disproves your conclusion.
Of course banks will fail or get into trouble from time to time. You rightly point to the fringe banking crisis, Barings, Johnson-Matthey and BCCI - not one of which caused systemic collapse or required the taxpayer to step in and nationalise the losses. Before Gordon Brown started poking around with things he didn't understand, we hadn't had a bank run in this country since 1866.
In other words, a system which survived the financial turmoil of the late nineteenth century, two world wars, the Great Depression and the 1974 oil crisis, suddenly collapsed when changed by Gordon Brown.
In particular, the collapse of Lloyds, Northern Rock, HBOS, Bradford & Bingley, and above all RBS were straighforward regulatory failures, which most certainly should have been prevented. The FSA didn't even bother to discuss the prudential and systemic implications of the takeover of ABN Amro. Why not? Because under Brown's hare-brained system, no-one was actually responsble for banking supervision (as opposed to micro-regulation).
Comments
I bet what'll happen is this: if independence is granted, BAE will suddenly change their mind.
The truth is, we need more foreign orders, and messes like the three Nakhoda Ragam-class corvette (built for Brunei and not accepted, now sold to the Indonesians for 1/5th the build price) does not help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhoda_Ragam-class_corvette
While the MP has been curiously silent, the Council leader is kicking off:
"The leader of Portsmouth council, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, questioned why a decision was being taken before the referendum.
He told the BBC's Today programme: "Portsmouth is the last place in England that has the ability to build advanced warships for the Royal Navy and I'm very concerned that with a potential independence vote in Scotland, if Portsmouth shipbuilding is shut down, what would remain of the UK would have no ability to build advanced warships."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24831779
F1: still no driver movement. Feeling seems to be that a Lotus decision could happen this week. If so, that would enable Hulkenberg or Maldonado (whoever doesn't get it) to try their luck elsewhere (probably Force India/Sauber respectively) and Massa to jump into the Williams seat Maldonado had. Di Resta and Gutierrez are probably the chaps who might lose out.
Labour vote strengthening in bucketloads in London and the North. The end of Hughes, Teather and Featherstone?
It's seemingly in decline in the Midlands and Scotland (presumably the UNITE fiasco is to blame).
One of the oddities is that the Tories are collecting more LIBLAB switchers than they are losing.
It's UKIP to the right that the Tories have to tackle.
2010 Lib Voters at close to 25% in the "undecided camp"
Meanwhile, I see NY now has a landslide commie mayor. We're all Marxists now, Rupert.
@Alanbrooke - a little variety is nice, that's all. Cameron is a disappointment - a little skill, a little charm and a little luck meant he ended up promotoed well above his ability
@Pulpstar - I thought about the US piece as an alternative to David's thread. Just could remember who wrote it... ;-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24756311
Bush was an under rated politician full of that folksy charm much admired by many US voters. However he won two tight elections at the edge of a demographic time bomb that now has exploded against the GOP. They have to address their Hispanic problem.
Interestingly Christie attracted 45% of their vote and 20% black vote last night - double the normal figure.
Slightly awkward self-promotionI've written a delightful comedy, and there's an introductory special offer. You get 2/3 off if you use code KF49K at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/373077
The offer ends tomorrow, so I thought I'd mention it before it expires.
When Sir Edric Greenlock, the Hero of Hornska, is summoned to attend the King in the dead of night he fears imminent execution. Committing adultery is frowned upon in King Lawrence’s domains, especially when it’s with Lawrence’s wife. The King, however, has something else in mind. Priceless royal treasures have been stolen, and the King dispatches Sir Edric to retrieve them in a mission that could optimistically be described as suicidal.
Along the way he’ll battle rockheaded golems, terrible sorcery and the Ursk: a race of brutal slavers who consider humans to be a sort of edible currency.
Accompanied by his pathologically loyal manservant Dog, the prudish elf Lysandra, and a man called Colin, he must travel to the Unholy Temple to retrieve the royal treasures from a mysterious thief.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 5m
Portsmouth ship-building. Wouldn't now be time for local MP Mike Hancock to resign + fight a by-election on the issue? Would be sensational.
I think I heard what is possibly the most stupid remark I've ever heard on the Today programme this morning (and that is saying something). Normally I wouldn't mention it, but it's an interesting stupid remark because it's perhaps part of a politically-significant rewrite of history.
The fool who made the remark was Neal Lawson, who (you would have thought) should know better. What he said, apparently in all seriousness, was that the state had withdrawn from regulation of the financial industry in the lead-up to the financial crash.
Is this part of a pattern? Are the left trying now to claim that one of the most draconian, bureaucratic, expensive and detailed systems of financial regulation ever devised by man never existed?
Yet again you are wrong and try to make yourself look clever by putting words into people's mouths that they did not say.
I was just commenting on the trends shown by YouGov which is the most frequent poll that we have. The only finite view can be given by a seat-by-seat analysis and that would only be a view at a moment in time.
I thought it was widely accepted that a contributory factor to the crash was Gordon Brown's deregulation of the City, the 'lightness of touch' which he was fond of advertsing before it all went pear-shaped.
It is one of the mistakes for which he is (correctly) condemned, no?
18 months of this - gawd how depressing.
"UK population projected to reach 70 million by 2027, according to figures published by the ONS"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24831941#TWEET947072
Shame really, because I quite like rotund politicians,but if it was a question of his health....
Looks like we may have a contest between two whose health is problematic - Clinton and Christie. Odds on who croaks first....? No, no,...bad taste.....forget it.
Interestingly Labour were generally by no means as hostile, even when defending!
Of course, all this box-ticking activity, interference and micro-management completely missed the point (as Peter Lilley warned it would). But it certainly existed, big-time.
Interestingly, though, having through the tripartate scheme was Brown's plan all along, it looks like it may have been Eddie George's fault (at least according to Iain Martin). Brown intended to move all regulatory responsibility to the FSA but George - who hadn't been consulted - threatened to resign. Hence the hastily cooked up tripartate scheme.
On balance I think the proposed new system - spliting consumer protection from systemic risk - is the right way to go because you are trying to protect against very different things. Another of those "boring but important" things the Tories are doing and not getting any credit for.
Thanks to Andrea for saying they can exchange up to 25% of the capital value as tax free cash but that then begs the question, how do they value that benefit - is it for example 20 20x the DB income - so let's say £10,000pa pension is 'worth' £200,000, they can take £50k as a tax free lump sum - how much of their taxable income do they lose for that, is it £2,500pa?
If so that's then the 20x commutation factor whic compares to normal public sector rates of circa 9 to 13..... nice if so for the MPs!!
NP - I'm intrigued there's no revaluation up to scheme retirement age after the pension benefit becomes deferred. Are you sure? If so you are right if someone retires before age of 50 say then they'd see the real benefits eroded significantly... rather less so if within 10 years or so however. Also then if they re-enter at a later date as an MP are the benefits revalued at that time anyway and just service continued based on the latest salary so they don't lose out provided they are re-elected in time?
As a client of mine, I'd be wanting you to find this out - if only because it might incur an Annual allowance tax charge for you if you re-join!!! But hey, likely to still be worth it.
Labour opposition's "new economic cycle theory" 101.
If 2010 LD switchers ( pissed off Labour voters ) had voted for Brown he'd have had about 306 seats and be PM not Dave.Bigging up lefty stupidity doesn't make it smart.
I believe he did, and if I am wrong, so are a number of well-regarded commentators.
I have heard the Eddie George story before, and it has the ring of truth.
Indeed or of course the hilarious peak of "No more [tory] BOOM and BUST"
As a consumer, there's actually only one rule you need in financial services: if they're very keen to sell you something, don't buy it.
LOL
Not sure your R4 guy was that wide of the mark.
I believe the the FCA have already admitted the were spending too much time on IFAs and the much loved RDR where coincidentally all the biggest fans of that work then promptly left the regulator as quick as they could line up new jobs with the banks leaving the FCA to report on whether it's worked out well or not.
I don't mind it as the RDR has knocked out 20%+ of my direct competition and over 60% of the banking 'advice' competition.....
Presumably the assassination will not be televised (by the BBC)?
The power of PB!
Edit: Shadsy has cut him to 9/2. If you know nothing about political betting, you can make money just by following Shadsy's price moves.
I buy the incompetence bit, Richard, not the 'lightness of touch'.
It was supposed to be one of London's big advantages. Sure was - for some.
Cons: Ave: 34.25 (range 33-35)
Labour: Ave: 43.75 (range 42-45)
LibDem: Ave: 8.5 (range 8-9)
UKIP: Ave 6.75 (range 6-7)
So compared to today, Labour is down and UKIP up.
Here is my shot in the dark GE prediction anyway:
CON 35%; LAB 34%; LD 16%:
CON 278; LAB 310; LD 35 seats. Ed goes it alone.
Once upon a time I studied the definition of a "professional" and there was a serious conflict between what I understood (and still believe to be the case) and the way "professional" bank staff acted!
Invidious comparisons were made with used car salespersons!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10429617/Shipbuilding-to-stop-at-Portsmouth-but-jobs-could-be-saved-if-Scotland-votes-for-independence.html
Another reason for the English to want Scots independence......
The point of disagreement here is the extent of control - and I mean control, not bureaucratic interference. Unless I am very wrong, Brown loosened controls. London became for a while a shining example of the benefits of a light regualtory touch.
Are you telling me that it became such a popular financial centre not because the controls were light, but because the regulators were incompetent?
Doesn't even pass the smell test.
Don't forget that, with the exception of RBS, the UK banks which actually got into trouble (Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, HBOS, Lloyds and now the Coop) were actually boring retail banks with no significant investment bank operations. The same is true of some of the other toxic banks in Ireland, Germany and Spain.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fools-Gold-Unrestrained-Corrupted-Catastrophe/dp/0349121893/
There were some things that were regulated in New York but not in London. The big problem though was activities which were either completely unregulated (the shadow banking system) or regulated very badly as the nature of the activity was clearly not understood
http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/middle-ages-cattle-grazing-for-council-grass-cutting-dismissed-as-wacky/
Bloody sheep, taking our jobs.
Regulation in financial services should be prudential based, focused on key business principles and have massive penalities for firms and individuals that transgress. Brown's system had none of that.
(As an aside, one of my cousins was telling me about regulation when he was a director of a bank back in the 50s and 60s. It basically involved regulators coming over for lunch with the board 4 times a year - and spending it asking about which of their competitors they were worried about / who they thought was over-trading or taking on too much risk. If you make an adjustment for any prejudices/game playing that's not actually a bad strategy for figuring out what is going on.
But what does your shot in the dark say for UKIP?
Unite protecting our lads from sheep.
http://www.camcattle.co.uk/
"Our cattle have become an everyday city sight on Cambridge's many commons and meadows, where they are free to wander, sleep, and feed as they please. This provides the conscientious consumers of Cambridge with the rare opportunity to see exactly where their beef comes from, and the high quality of the cattles' lives."
The National Trust does it in some places, often with rare breeds. Cattle causes much less harm to the underlying ground than heavy tractors, and help the growth of wild flowers etc from both ends, as it were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_grazing
In certain circumstances, it might work. But they will be rare. However, it is worth considering.
I'd recommend them - they need to be heavily chaperoned if you have areas where you don't want them doing a garden piranha - they consume the whole Petri dish.
I like your lunch anecdote though and am inclined to agree with you, not least because of my experience of auditors who spent their days ticking boxes whilst failing to notice the milkman couldn't paid. (That's a real example, in case you were wondering.)
Must be the fall out from Falkirk !!
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-11-05/bae-systems-shipyard-jobs-in-glasgow-under-threat/
That's the problem with land: even wild lands often require a great deal of management for them to remain truly wild.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Year-Life-English-Meadow/dp/0711227225
So options being kept open......
They've been running quite well for me recently,although this hasn't always been evident from the tips I have posted here. Sometimes I just don't have the time to post, and that's been the case with a few successful days recently. Anyway, here's what I am on today, all to light stakes.
Kempton
4.30 Gay Marriage 8/1 ew
5.00 Seek A Star 9/2 ew
5.30 Nave 8/1 ew
7.00 Urban Dance 11/4 win
7.30 Horsted Keynes 6/4 win
I'm keen to oppose the favorites in the first two races. In the 7.30, I also like Chookie Royale at 5/1. I backed it last time out when it should have won but got a bad ride. Not sure this is its right distance though. Will probably do the forecast anyway.
Good luck.
The local butcher slaughtered the pigs (and kept some pork for his fee) and the people in the village had pork or bacon joint, as we slaughtered about one or more pigs a month. All done without any government supervision or EU interference and a very little cost to anyone.
Also we had a cider orchard with press and storage vats and people brought their own apples and bottles and had free juice or cider.
Rejoicing at Guardian towers - have they confirmed yet they did send British operative's names to the NYT?
"Some are tearing their hair out about the way it has been announced.
One senior Whitehall source blamed the MOD and thought that they were guilty of portraying this as Portsmouth being sacrificed on the altar of the independence referendum.
The truth, the source said, was actually that Govan was always the jewel in the BAE ship-building crown, and with Scotstoun literally just across the river from it, had advantages that everyone knew Portsmouth would struggle to match when the day came for the aircraft carrier work to diminish.
“We saw this coming five or six years ago, ” one Westminster source said, but the way it leaked out has been “over-spun” and “risks giving Alex Salmond the credit” – ie, his referendum has saved Govan’s bacon.
One source said it had echoes of the leak suspected to have come from the MOD, which floated the idea that the UK-rump might try to keep its nuclear subs at Faslane as some kind of Cyprus-style sovereign base even if the Scots voted for independence.
http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/1800-dock-jobs-anger-spin/26930#sthash.mDEZviDP.dpuf
A quick glance at recent problems like the London Whale shows the real barrier to effective regulation. If the bank itself, and the bank's own risk management team do not know what is going on -- and we can safely assume that JPMorgan, UBS and the like did not set out to lose billions -- then how on earth is the regulator, whether based in the City or Canary Wharf, expected to know?
Then if we go back to the global meltdown, we see another problem. The mathematical modelling of opaque (sometimes deliberately so) financial instruments was pants.
The global meltdown and earlier crises such as Long Term Credit show yet another problem -- lack of transparency, leading to liquidity crises. When the balloon does go up, everyone assumes the worst so becomes reluctant to deal, even though, granted an omniscient overlord, losses could be contained by netting off liabilities.
The idea that Gordon Brown is responsible for any of this is ludicrous, and now the 2010 election is behind us, perhaps we can move on. It is a truism there was regulatory failure, because there really was a financial crisis, but that is not the same as saying that any reasonable alternative regulatory regime could have prevented it.
Gulp. Hope you don't know where I live...
I'll be honest - If (enough) of that lot come in I'll stick with you otherwise I won't ;p. As I follow Raceclear too
The banks may not have set out to lose billions, but they were willing to accept that as one of the possible outcomes. Warren Buffett was talking about how banks and insurers had no way to tell how much they were exposing themselves to back in 2002:
http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/09/cx_aw_0509derivatives.html
1) Shipyard job losses
2) Falkirk (it's all a Tory plot)
3) Toronto Mayor.
Hancock still hasn't surfaced - Council Leader on DP, playing the Scottish card....
If UKIP were able to establish themselves in some Labour-held seats (say, Rotherham, or similar seats) then I could then see the Conservative vote collapsing in their favour.
Of course banks will fail or get into trouble from time to time. You rightly point to the fringe banking crisis, Barings, Johnson-Matthey and BCCI - not one of which caused systemic collapse or required the taxpayer to step in and nationalise the losses. Before Gordon Brown started poking around with things he didn't understand, we hadn't had a bank run in this country since 1866.
In other words, a system which survived the financial turmoil of the late nineteenth century, two world wars, the Great Depression and the 1974 oil crisis, suddenly collapsed when changed by Gordon Brown.
In particular, the collapse of Lloyds, Northern Rock, HBOS, Bradford & Bingley, and above all RBS were straighforward regulatory failures, which most certainly should have been prevented. The FSA didn't even bother to discuss the prudential and systemic implications of the takeover of ABN Amro. Why not? Because under Brown's hare-brained system, no-one was actually responsble for banking supervision (as opposed to micro-regulation).