Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity". Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.
Another massive loss to what used to be the Conservative Party.
To an extent but as last week's Aberdeen council by election showed the Tory vote is still largely holding up despite Ruth's departure.
It does increase the chances of the next non SNP and Unionist First Minister being a LD rather than a Tory though given the biggest gains in recent Scottish polls have been by the Scottish Liberal Democrats
LOL, you are mental, you will not be living to see that unless independence comes.
My long shot top is Swinson narrowly loses her Westminster seat to the SNP at the next election due to Tory tactical unwind over her anti Brexit stance, she then stands for Holyrood and becomes First Minister in 2021 instead after 14 years of SNP rule.
Chuka then succeeds her as UK LD leader after winning his Cities of London and Westminster seat helped by Labour tactical voting and aims for PM in 2024
Your Scottish wish is a million miles out, the Lib Dems could not run a bath and will never be in power in Scotland.
I could see the LDs sweeping Edinburgh, Aberdeen, rural and suburban Scotland even if Glasgow and the central belt stays SNP
The central belt is suburban Scotland!
Most of it is working class, ex industrial. Plenty of suburbs around Edinburgh and Aberdeen
The central belt includes Edinburgh & environs.
Edinburgh and Lothian are not really central belt more at its outer edge, culturally Edinburgh has more in common with Aberdeen than the central belt as a whole
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.
A deal by 31st October, which MPs who went to the voters pledging to implement Brexit have to decide to support - or else enable No Deal - is far and away the best way out of this hell-hole.
That means passing May's WA. Boris's proposal has not been a negotiation other than with his own party.
Watching JRM and co eat their words would be rather amusing...
Boris would still trumpet it as doing what no-one else has found a way to do: delivering Brexit.
He'd say "I've ended the bloody interminable Brexit process."
And a grateful nation would put statues of him in every market square....
To put him in the stocks to pelt with rotten fruit more likely...
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.
A deal by 31st October, which MPs who went to the voters pledging to implement Brexit have to decide to support - or else enable No Deal - is far and away the best way out of this hell-hole.
That means passing May's WA. Boris's proposal has not been a negotiation other than with his own party.
Watching JRM and co eat their words would be rather amusing...
Boris would still trumpet it as doing what no-one else has found a way to do: delivering Brexit.
He'd say "I've ended the bloody interminable Brexit process."
And a grateful nation would put statues of him in every market square....
I love the way you assume 'the nation' thinks just like you.
I am confident the chance of statues of Boris ever appearing in market squares across the UK is even less than the chance of his so-called 'deal' becoming an actual deal.
Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity". Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.
A deal by 31st October, which MPs who went to the voters pledging to implement Brexit have to decide to support - or else enable No Deal - is far and away the best way out of this hell-hole.
That means passing May's WA. Boris's proposal has not been a negotiation other than with his own party.
Watching JRM and co eat their words would be rather amusing...
It can only be brought about by vetoing the extension. This is not contrary to the EU's interests. Allowing Boris to win a GE would give him the opportunity to impose No Deal. The EU should take advantage of Boris's relative weakness while it still can, refuse an extension and force closure. This will almost certainly result in the WA being passed.
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.
WSNIPprospect of a deal?
I agree. But the Black Swan is that one or more countries might veto for their own reasons divorced from Johnson's pleadings. At some point someone in the EU27 is going to get fed up with all the uncertainty. All the more so once the predicted world downturn arrives.
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things to change is to make them change with a General Election (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
So a stitch up for remain
What was that about democracy......
But... won't the 'will of the people' see Leave through?
Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity". Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.
How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.
WSNIPprospect of a deal?
I agree. But the Black Swan is that one or more countries might veto for their own reasons divorced from Johnson's pleadings. At some point someone in the EU27 is going to get fed up with all the uncertainty. All the more so once the predicted world downturn arrives.
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things to change is to make them change with a General Election (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
So a stitch up for remain
What was that about democracy......
But... won't the 'will of the people' see Leave through?
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.
WSNIPprospect of a deal?
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things to change is to make them change with a General Election (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
So a stitch up for remain
What was that about democracy......
But... won't the 'will of the people' see Leave through?
Why is it a stitch up?
Leavers have nothing to fear if the "Will of the People" is still for Leave.
It is quite obvious that they oppose a referendum because they fear it has changed.
Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity". Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.
That seems reasonable and possibly on the mild side.
But interesting that the most severe Brexit outcome is now deemed less damaging than one of the Treasury's scenarios of the effect of mere vote.
Especially given that the world economic situation is looking distinctly sour and that the UK's consumption bubble is overdue to turn into recession in any case.
Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity". Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.
WSNIPprospect of a deal?
I agree. But the Black Swan is that one or more countries might veto for their own reasons divorced from Johnson's pleadings. At some point someone in the EU27 is going to get fed up with all the uncertainty. All the more so once the predicted world downturn arrives.
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things to change is to make them change with a General Election (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
So a stitch up for remain
What was that about democracy......
But... won't the 'will of the people' see Leave through?
Why is it a stitch up?
Remain could win with 34% of the vote?
Absolute nonsense.
If Remain gets 34% of the first round, the weaker of the two leave options drops out for the second round; then it's a straight run-off between Remain and the preferred Leave option, which, given Leave got 66% of the first round, should be a foregone conclusion.
Where's your 'will of the people' Leaver confidence?
Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity". Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.
If 30% of the country including some very rich city types really believe in no deal, surely they can come up with some form of insurance us scaredy remainers can buy to hedge against the bad outcomes?
Id be happy to take some evens a recession within 4 quarters after a no deal for example.
Isnt that cheap money for the likes of Rees-Moggs finance firm to take if they believe what they say do?
Democracy is a neutral tool. If the English Defence League elects itself a new leader in a fairly conducted ballot of the members that's democratic, but that doesn't mean it is therefore admirable. What we have here is a thoroughly nasty little exercise in ochlocracy foisted on the country once by a clever little weasel in 1975 and again by a silly little weasel in 2016, and the result deserves no more respect, just because it is the result of a plebiscite, than would, let's say, a vote to recriminalise gay sex. Revoke, and a written constitution outlawing any further referendums about anything whatever, are the way forward.
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.
WSNIPprospect of a deal?
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things to change is to make them change with a General Election (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
So a stitch up for remain
What was that about democracy......
But... won't the 'will of the people' see Leave through?
Why is it a stitch up?
Remain could win with 34% of the vote?
Absolute nonsense.
If Remain gets 34% of the first round, the weaker of the two leave options drops out for the second round; then it's a straight run-off between Remain and the preferred Leave option, which, given Leave got 66% of the first round, should be a foregone conclusion.
Where's your 'will of the people' Leaver confidence?
Where did I say "Will of the people"?
And where did you say that this hypothetical referendum you are so certain of winning was a 2 stage affair?
The 2016 referendum was the brainchild of the Remain backing PM who told us it was a once in a generation vote that would be implemented with no turning back.
Off topic. On the SPIN UK GE number of seats market, Brexit Party and Lib Dems have been suspended for at least the last couple of hours. Other parties are not suspended. Don’t know what’s happening there. TBP were 4-5.5 last time I had looked, not sure about Lib Dem’s.
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.
WSNIPprospect of a deal?
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things to change is to make them change with a General Election (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
So a stitch up for remain
What was that about democracy......
But... won't the 'will of the people' see Leave through?
Why is it a stitch up?
Remain could win with 34% of the vote?
Absolute nonsense.
If Remain gets 34% of the first round, the weaker of the two leave options drops out for the second round; then it's a straight run-off between Remain and the preferred Leave option, which, given Leave got 66% of the first round, should be a foregone conclusion.
Where's your 'will of the people' Leaver confidence?
Where did I say "Will of the people"?
And where did you say that this hypothetical referendum you are so certain of winning was a 2 stage affair?
The 2016 referendum was the brainchild of the Remain backing PM who told us it was a once in a generation vote that would be implemented with no turning back.
Cameron clearly meant that leave had to win three referendums before it was enacted.
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things to change is to make them change with a General Election (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
So a stitch up for remain
What was that about democracy......
But... won't the 'will of the people' see Leave through?
Why is it a stitch up?
Remain could win with 34% of the vote?
Absolute nonsense.
If Remain gets 34% of the first round, the weaker of the two leave options drops out for the second round; then it's a straight run-off between Remain and the preferred Leave option, which, given Leave got 66% of the first round, should be a foregone conclusion.
Where's your 'will of the people' Leaver confidence?
Where did I say "Will of the people"?
And where did you say that this hypothetical referendum you are so certain of winning was a 2 stage affair?
Apologies for not making it clear - it's got to be either a 2-stage or STV Referendum if there are three options.
Where did I say I was certain of winning it?
Tbh I suspect Leave with a Deal will win, but even though I'd prefer us to Remain, at least we'd have got to the end of the process and the electorate would have voted for the terms of the way we Leave.
Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity". Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.
That seems reasonable and possibly on the mild side.
But interesting that the most severe Brexit outcome is now deemed less damaging than one of the Treasury's scenarios of the effect of mere vote.
Especially given that the world economic situation is looking distinctly sour and that the UK's consumption bubble is overdue to turn into recession in any case.
The Treasury document was just another stupid thing that George Osborne did. It is completely separate from the OBR, whose forecasts have proven pretty accurate and who have no doubt that Brexit related uncertainty has already harmed the economy (as indeed do all serious economists that I know). I love how Brexiteers' forecasts of an economic boon from leaving has become "we were due a recession anyway". At least nobody on here is still talking up the absurd Patrick Minford.
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.
WSNIPprospect of a deal?
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things to change is to make them change with a General Election (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
So a stitch up for remain
What was that about democracy......
But... won't the 'will of the people' see Leave through?
Why is it a stitch up?
Remain could win with 34% of the vote?
Absolute nonsense.
If Remain gets 34% of the first round, the weaker of the two leave options drops out for the second round; then it's a straight run-off between Remain and the preferred Leave option, which, given Leave got 66% of the first round, should be a foregone conclusion.
Where's your 'will of the people' Leaver confidence?
[Snip] The 2016 referendum was the brainchild of the Remain backing PM who told us it was a once in a generation vote that would be implemented with no turning back.
Thank you viewcode for an interesting thread header.
I'm a bit hesitant to post this comment because I haven't read the book, but anyway here are the two cents that I have taken away from your review:
1) It seems reasonable to differentiate between national populism and fascism. Going from the widely accepted definitions of the terms, there are clear differences between the two. The crucial one being that speaking of populism makes only real sense in a (still somewhat) democratic environment. Fascism is something that takes place in a post-democratic environment.
But it seems just as reasonable to me, to point out that national populism is the usual breeding ground for fascism. Simplifyingly one might say that fascism is national populism 'on steroids', spiralling out of control and in its course destroying the controlling democratic process.
2) I think it's important, but difficult, to at least try to differentiate between populist policies and popular policies. How to do that?
My attempt at a definition would be that popular policies are those policies whose proponents succeed in accurately describing and honestly explaining the objectives, the procedural mechanics and, most importantly, the expected outcomes of those, and then win public favour for them.
Discerning populist from popular policies seems to always imply a modicum of dishonesty and deception. The electorate is not a monolithic bloc, otherwise elections would be redundant. But neither is the individual voter's mind, at least in most cases, a firm, monolithic, coherent structure. I think in most cases there is a more or less wide gap between what the individual (objectively) understands to be correct and what he 'feels' to be right and proper, and I think that populism mostly thrives within that gap.
Proverbially, voters can vote either 'with their head or with their heart' and I believe that the term populism should describe a situation where political actors succeed in deceiving the voter's 'head' in regard to their genuine, legitimate interest by appealing to their 'heart', either their deeply held (often covert) resentments or their affectionate sentiments.
A classic example for the latter being politicians promoting a tax-cut policy (sometimes even without corresponding cuts in state expenditure or deliberately taking on a higher debt burden) by promising a magical 'trickling down' of the expected gain in wealth from the fortunate few to the unfortunate many, which then in practice does not occur, unless forced by active measures of redistribution.
There seems to be ample evidence for the possibility of confusing enough voters 'heads' to vote for policy proposals which their 'hearts' wish to be feasible, but really are not.
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.
That seems reasonable and possibly on the mild side.
But interesting that the most severe Brexit outcome is now deemed less damaging than one of the Treasury's scenarios of the effect of mere vote.
Especially given that the world economic situation is looking distinctly sour and that the UK's consumption bubble is overdue to turn into recession in any case.
The Treasury document was just another stupid thing that George Osborne did. It is completely separate from the OBR, whose forecasts have proven pretty accurate and who have no doubt that Brexit related uncertainty has already harmed the economy (as indeed do all serious economists that I know). I love how Brexiteers' forecasts of an economic boon from leaving has become "we were due a recession anyway". At least nobody on here is still talking up the absurd Patrick Minford.
We are, in my and others opinion, due a recession and I've been predicting one for 2018-9 since before the 2015 general election.
Nothing too analytical in my prediction beyond it being ten years since the last recession and therefore 'due'.
Given the consumption and construction bubble the UK is in I don't see how a recession can't come at some point soon.
And that's before the possibility of any worldwide cause, the possibility of which have certainly increased.
Another massive loss to what used to be the Conservative Party.
To an extent but as last week's Aberdeen council by election showed the Tory vote is still largely holding up despite Ruth's departure.
It does increase the chances of the next non SNP and Unionist First Minister being a LD rather than a Tory though given the biggest gains in recent Scottish polls have been by the Scottish Liberal Democrats
LOL, you are mental, you will not be living to see that unless independence comes.
My long shot top is Swinson narrowly loses her Westminster seat to the SNP at the next election due to Tory tactical unwind over her anti Brexit stance, she then stands for Holyrood and becomes First Minister in 2021 instead after 14 years of SNP rule.
Chuka then succeeds her as UK LD leader after winning his Cities of London and Westminster seat helped by Labour tactical voting and aims for PM in 2024
Your Scottish wish is a million miles out, the Lib Dems could not run a bath and will never be in power in Scotland.
I could see the LDs sweeping Edinburgh, Aberdeen, rural and suburban Scotland even if Glasgow and the central belt stays SNP
The central belt is suburban Scotland!
Most of it is working class, ex industrial. Plenty of suburbs around Edinburgh and Aberdeen
The central belt includes Edinburgh & environs.
Edinburgh and Lothian are not really central belt more at its outer edge, culturally Edinburgh has more in common with Aberdeen than the central belt as a whole
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things toction (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of thParliament cannot resolve it.
So a stitch up for remain
What was that about democracy......
But... won't the 'will of the people' see Leave through?
Why is it a stitch up?
Remain could win with 34% of the vote?
Absolute nonsense.
If Remain gets 34% of the first round, the weaker of the two leave options drops out for the second round; then it' run-off between Remain and the preferred Leave option, which, given Leave got 66% of the first round, should be a foregone conclusion.
Where's your 'will of the people' Leaver confidence?
Where did I say "Will of the people"?
And where did you say that this hypothetical referendum you are so certain of winning was a 2 stage affair?
Apologies for not making it clear - it's got to be either a 2-stage or STV Referendum if there are three options.
Where did I say I was certain of winning it?
Tbh I suspect Leave with a Deal will win, but even though I'd prefer us to Remain, at least we'd have got to the end of the process and the electorate would have voted for the terms of the way we Leave.
There will be no simple referendums never mind fancy shmancy rigged multiple choice ones.
Give it up and focus on a party that can offer rejoin.
Thank you viewcode for an interesting thread header.
I'm a bit hesitant to post this comment because I haven't read the book, but anyway here are the two cents that I have taken away from your review:
1) It seems reasonable to differentiate between national populism and fascism. Going from the widely accepted definitions of the terms, there are clear differences between the two. The crucial one being that speaking of populism makes only real sense in a (still somewhat) democratic environment. Fascism is something that takes place in a post-democratic environment.
But it seems just as reasonable to me, to point out that national populism is the usual breeding ground for fascism. Simplifyingly one might say that fascism is national populism 'on steroids', spiralling out of control and in its course destroying the controlling democratic process.
2) I think it's important, but difficult, to at least try to differentiate between populist policies and popular policies. How to do that?
My attempt at a definition would be that popular policies are those policies whose proponents succeed in accurately describing and honestly explaining the objectives, the procedural mechanics and, most importantly, the expected outcomes of those, and then win public favour for them.
Discerning populist from popular policies seems to always imply a modicum of dishonesty and deception. The electorate is not a monolithic bloc, otherwise elections would be redundant. But neither is the individual voter's mind, at least in most cases, a firm, monolithic, coherent structure. I think in most cases there is a more or less wide gap between what the individual (objectively) understands to be correct and what he 'feels' to be right and proper, and I think that populism mostly thrives within that gap.
Proverbially, voters can vote either 'with their head or with their heart' and I believe that the term populism should describe a situation where political actors succeed in deceiving the voter's 'head' in regard to their genuine, legitimate interest by appealing to their 'heart', either their deeply held (often covert) resentments or their affectionate sentiments.
A classic example for the latter being politicians promoting a tax-cut policy (sometimes even without corresponding cuts in state expenditure or deliberately taking on a higher debt burden) by promising a magical 'trickling down' of the expected gain in wealth from the fortunate few to the unfortunate many, which then in practice does not occur, unless forced by active measures of redistribution.
There seems to be ample evidence for the possibility of confusing enough voters 'heads' to vote for policy proposals which their 'hearts' wish to be feasible, but really are not.
Populism occurs when the difference between 'one rule for us and another rule for them' becomes too great.
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.
The Treasury document was just another stupid thing that George Osborne did. It is completely separate from the OBR, whose forecasts have proven pretty accurate and who have no doubt that Brexit related uncertainty has already harmed the economy (as indeed do all serious economists that I know). I love how Brexiteers' forecasts of an economic boon from leaving has become "we were due a recession anyway". At least nobody on here is still talking up the absurd Patrick Minford.
We are, in my and others opinion, due a recession and I've been predicting one for 2018-9 since before the 2015 general election.
Nothing too analytical in my prediction beyond it being ten years since the last recession and therefore 'due'.
Given the consumption and construction bubble the UK is in I don't see how a recession can't come at some point soon.
And that's before the possibility of any worldwide cause, the possibility of which have certainly increased.
No recession between 1992 and 2007/8! 15 or 16 years, so was well overdue by your reckoning. I don't subscribe to the view that the recession 2008 - 2010 was any worse because the period of growth prior to it was so long. It was simply the nature of the beast. A Banking crisis that could have led to systemic collapse of the banking system.
Don't get me wrong I think there will be a recession in the case of No Deal, but before we get to that things are not looking good on international trade, geo-political risk and financial asset indicators...
How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Which current leavers do you think could or would form part of a GNU? Presumably wanting to be part of it would have to be a required qualification.
Starting out with a lie (“national unity”) isn’t a good start
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things toction (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of thParliament cannot resolve it.
So a stitch up for remain
What was that about democracy......
But... won't the 'will of the people' see Leave through?
Why is it a stitch up?
Remain could win with 34% of the vote?
Absolute nonsense.
If Remain gets 34% of the first round, the weaker of the two leave options drops out for the second round; then it' run-off between Remain and the preferred Leave option, which, given Leave got 66% of the first round, should be a foregone conclusion.
Where's your 'will of the people' Leaver confidence?
Where did I say "Will of the people"?
And where did you say that this hypothetical referendum you are so certain of winning was a 2 stage affair?
Apologies for not making it clear - it's got to be either a 2-stage or STV Referendum if there are three options.
Where did I say I was certain of winning it?
Tbh I suspect Leave with a Deal will win, but even though I'd prefer us to Remain, at least we'd have got to the end of the process and the electorate would have voted for the terms of the way we Leave.
There will be no simple referendums never mind fancy shmancy rigged multiple choice ones.
Give it up and focus on a party that can offer rejoin.
How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Which current leavers do you think could or would form part of a GNU? Presumably wanting to be part of it would have to be a required qualification.
Starting out with a lie (“national unity”) isn’t a good start
Oh I don't know, Charles. Lying seems to be the political fashion these days. As long as it's 'our kind of liar', doesn't really matter, does it?
The Treasury document was just another stupid thing that George Osborne did. It is completely separate from the OBR, whose forecasts have proven pretty accurate and who have no doubt that Brexit related uncertainty has already harmed the economy (as indeed do all serious economists that I know). I love how Brexiteers' forecasts of an economic boon from leaving has become "we were due a recession anyway". At least nobody on here is still talking up the absurd Patrick Minford.
Populism occurs when the difference between 'one rule for us and another rule for them' becomes too great.
Do you have a current UK example of 'one rule for us and another rule for them' that you think is driving populism?
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Which current leavers do you think could or would form part of a GNU? Presumably wanting to be part of it would have to be a required qualification.
Starting out with a lie (“national unity”) isn’t a good start
Cf 'will of the people', 'the British people voted for', 'Brexit means Brexit', 'our European friends', 'We're going to stick to the constitution and obey the law', '£350m a week', 'breaking point', 'the Turks are coming' etc, etc.
If there are prominent leavers who are having the vapours about a GNU because of fastidiousness over “national unity”, I'd love to see their moral workings.
Thank you viewcode for an interesting thread header.
I'm a bit hesitant to post this comment because I haven't read the book, but anyway here are the two cents that I have taken away from your review:
1) It seems reasonable to differentiate between national populism and fascism. Going from the widely accepted definitions of the terms, there are clear differences between the two. The crucial one being that speaking of populism makes only real sense in a (still somewhat) democratic environment. Fascism is something that takes place in a post-democratic environment.
But it seems just as reasonable to me, to point out that national populism is the usual breeding ground for fascism. Simplifyingly one might say that fascism is national populism 'on steroids', spiralling out of control and in its course destroying the controlling democratic process.
2) I think it's important, but difficult, to at least try to differentiate between populist policies and popular policies. How to do that?
My attempt at a definition would be that popular policies are those policies whose proponents succeed in accurately describing and honestly explaining the objectives, the procedural mechanics and, most importantly, the expected outcomes of those, and then win public favour for them.
Discerning populist from popular policies seems to always imply a modicum of dishonesty and deception. The electorate is not a monolithic bloc, otherwise elections would be redundant. But neither is the individual voter's mind, at least in most cases, a firm, monolithic, coherent structure. I think in most cases there is a more or less wide gap between what the individual (objectively) understands to be correct and what he 'feels' to be right and proper, and I think that populism mostly thrives within that gap.
Proverbially, voters can vote either 'with their head or with their heart' and I believe that the term populism should describe a situation where political actors succeed in deceiving the voter's 'head' in regard to their genuine, legitimate interest by appealing to their 'heart', either their deeply held (often covert) resentments or their affectionate sentiments.
A classic example for the latter being politicians promoting a tax-cut policy (sometimes even without corresponding cuts in state expenditure or deliberately taking on a higher debt burden) by promising a magical 'trickling down' of the expected gain in wealth from the fortunate few to the unfortunate many, which then in practice does not occur, unless forced by active measures of redistribution.
There seems to be ample evidence for the possibility of confusing enough voters 'heads' to vote for policy proposals which their 'hearts' wish to be feasible, but really are not.
Ausgezeichnet!
I wish I wrote German as well as you write English. In fact I wish I wrote English as well as you do.
The Treasury document was just another stupid thing that George Osborne did. It is completely separate from the OBR, whose forecasts have proven pretty accurate and who have no doubt that Brexit related uncertainty has already harmed the economy (as indeed do all serious economists that I know). I love how Brexiteers' forecasts of an economic boon from leaving has become "we were due a recession anyway". At least nobody on here is still talking up the absurd Patrick Minford.
We are, in my and others opinion, due a recession and I've been predicting one for 2018-9 since before the 2015 general election.
Nothing too analytical in my prediction beyond it being ten years since the last recession and therefore 'due'.
Given the consumption and construction bubble the UK is in I don't see how a recession can't come at some point soon.
And that's before the possibility of any worldwide cause, the possibility of which have certainly increased.
No recession between 1992 and 2007/8! 15 or 16 years, so was well overdue by your reckoning. I don't subscribe to the view that the recession 2008 - 2010 was any worse because the period of growth prior to it was so long. It was simply the nature of the beast. A Banking crisis that could have led to systemic collapse of the banking system.
Don't get me wrong I think there will be a recession in the case of No Deal, but before we get to that things are not looking good on international trade, geo-political risk and financial asset indicators...
UK industrial output peaked in 2000 and has never returned to that level.
The FTSE100 also peaked in 1999 and didn't reach that level again until IIRC 2017.
Levels of home ownership peaked early in 2003 and then declined for more than a decade.
Other indicators such as unemployment and government borrowing also deteriorated after 2001.
So in many ways the UK had the consequences of a mild recession around 2001 but the GDP data said otherwise.
Populism occurs when the difference between 'one rule for us and another rule for them' becomes too great.
Do you have a current UK example of 'one rule for us and another rule for them' that you think is driving populism?
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
Some nationalised banks did remove individuals and key people in those institutions who had 'promised' share and bonus schemes removed. Alas, the people who were punished were probably still millionaires after the censure and the type of punishment 'the public' would have liked to have seen such as jail time difficult to execute given the legislation underpinning criminal and civil justice.
How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
The Treasury document was just another stupid thing that George Osborne did. It is completely separate from the OBR, whose forecasts have proven pretty accurate and who have no doubt that Brexit related uncertainty has already harmed the economy (as indeed do all serious economists that I know). I love how Brexiteers' forecasts of an economic boon from leaving has become "we were due a recession anyway". At least nobody on here is still talking up the absurd Patrick Minford.
We are, in my and others opinion, due a recession and I've been predicting one for 2018-9 since before the 2015 general election.
Nothing too analytical in my prediction beyond it being ten years since the last recession and therefore 'due'.
Given the consumption and construction bubble the UK is in I don't see how a recession can't come at some point soon.
And that's before the possibility of any worldwide cause, the possibility of which have certainly increased.
No recession between 1992 and 2007/8! 15 or 16 years, so was well overdue by your reckoning. I don't subscribe to the view that the recession 2008 - 2010 was any worse because the period of growth prior to it was so long. It was simply the nature of the beast. A Banking crisis that could have led to systemic collapse of the banking system.
Don't get me wrong I think there will be a recession in the case of No Deal, but before we get to that things are not looking good on international trade, geo-political risk and financial asset indicators...
UK industrial output peaked in 2000 and has never returned to that level.
The FTSE100 also peaked in 1999 and didn't reach that level again until IIRC 2017.
Levels of home ownership peaked early in 2003 and then declined for more than a decade.
Other indicators such as unemployment and government borrowing also deteriorated after 2001.
So in many ways the UK had the consequences of a mild recession around 2001 but the GDP data said otherwise.
There was a 2001 recession in America and Europe iirc but one which Gordon Brown steered us around (which no doubt contributed to his later hubris).
Populism occurs when the difference between 'one rule for us and another rule for them' becomes too great.
Do you have a current UK example of 'one rule for us and another rule for them' that you think is driving populism?
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
Which relates to another aspect - no matter how incompetent, how venal, how mendacious or how criminal the 'people like them' are they are widely believed to be protected from any negative consequences.
Any theories as to why the odds on the UK still being in the EU on 1st Jan 2022 are drifting further? Consensus here that 4 was good value, last matched price 5. Is it just polls showing Con up and Lib down? Feels like more than a 20% chance. If you combine it with the 2.96 at Smarkets on still being members on 1st Jan 2021 it suggests a bizarrely high probability of leaving during 2021 - an outcome that only seems likely if a GRU revokes A50 and a Tory landslide happens fast thereafter and reinstates it.
We are, in my and others opinion, due a recession and I've been predicting one for 2018-9 since before the 2015 general election.
Nothing too analytical in my prediction beyond it being ten years since the last recession and therefore 'due'.
Given the consumption and construction bubble the UK is in I don't see how a recession can't come at some point soon.
And that's before the possibility of any worldwide cause, the possibility of which have certainly increased.
No recession between 1992 and 2007/8! 15 or 16 years, so was well overdue by your reckoning. I don't subscribe to the view that the recession 2008 - 2010 was any worse because the period of growth prior to it was so long. It was simply the nature of the beast. A Banking crisis that could have led to systemic collapse of the banking system.
Don't get me wrong I think there will be a recession in the case of No Deal, but before we get to that things are not looking good on international trade, geo-political risk and financial asset indicators...
UK industrial output peaked in 2000 and has never returned to that level.
The FTSE100 also peaked in 1999 and didn't reach that level again until IIRC 2017.
Levels of home ownership peaked early in 2003 and then declined for more than a decade.
Other indicators such as unemployment and government borrowing also deteriorated after 2001.
So in many ways the UK had the consequences of a mild recession around 2001 but the GDP data said otherwise.
I don't disagree with your data.
Industrial output is not really a good thing to use as economic success in the type of advanced economy we live within the UK. Peak North sea oil was around 1999 IIRC and as Industrial output includes that, it is not going to be a good indicator.
Home ownership bobs around and comparative countries i.e. Germany and France for instance have lower home ownership. Again, I would not say that Home ownership is an indicator of economic success. Its a political goal not necessarily an economic one.
Political decisions were made in 2001 to spend a lot of money on public spending, it also coincided with a lot of security threats and the start of wars. I was actually out of work in part of 2001-2002 and so don't dispute the data as I had bad personal experience of unemployment at that time myself.
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.
The fact you've decided to tell us the 'correct' result in this 2nd referendum tells me everything about your belief in 'Democracy'.
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
Some nationalised banks did remove individuals and key people in those institutions who had 'promised' share and bonus schemes removed. Alas, the people who were punished were probably still millionaires after the censure and the type of punishment 'the public' would have liked to have seen such as jail time difficult to execute given the legislation underpinning criminal and civil justice.
That the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin walked away with huge payoffs while the workers only got statutory redundancy was a clear example of 'one rule for them and another rule for us'.
And nor were we ever 'all in this together' as the subsequent earnings of Osborne and Clegg and David Miliband have shown.
1) It seems reasonable to differentiate between national populism and fascism. Going from the widely accepted definitions of the terms, there are clear differences between the two. The crucial one being that speaking of populism makes only real sense in a (still somewhat) democratic environment. Fascism is something that takes place in a post-democratic environment.
But it seems just as reasonable to me, to point out that national populism is the usual breeding ground for fascism. Simplifyingly one might say that fascism is national populism 'on steroids', spiralling out of control and in its course destroying the controlling democratic process.
I wonder if an important difference between 'classic' Fascism and the current populism is the presence of a large section of military veterans (1920's Germany & Italy) ready to act, or a militarised society (1920s Japan). Though we fetishise the armed forces to a degree, they're a relatively minor part of the national conversation. Links between members of the armed forces and far right organisations may be a worrying straw in the wind.
1) It seems reasonable to differentiate between national populism and fascism. Going from the widely accepted definitions of the terms, there are clear differences between the two. The crucial one being that speaking of populism makes only real sense in a (still somewhat) democratic environment. Fascism is something that takes place in a post-democratic environment.
But it seems just as reasonable to me, to point out that national populism is the usual breeding ground for fascism. Simplifyingly one might say that fascism is national populism 'on steroids', spiralling out of control and in its course destroying the controlling democratic process.
I wonder if an important difference between 'classic' Fascism and the current populism is the presence of a large section of military veterans (1920's Germany & Italy) ready to act, or a militarised society (1920s Japan). Though we fetishise the armed forces to a degree, they're a relatively minor part of the national conversation. Links between members of the armed forces and far right organisations may be a worrying straw in the wind.
One popular explanation of why the UK avoided fascism is that our military strength depended more on naval might than the army. You can't so easily turn the navy on rebellious plebs. Much easier with an army. As a consequence, our rulers had to rely more on democratic processes and gradual reform.
For those interested the theme is explored in:
Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, by Barrington Moore.
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
Some nationalised banks did remove individuals and key people in those institutions who had 'promised' share and bonus schemes removed. Alas, the people who were punished were probably still millionaires after the censure and the type of punishment 'the public' would have liked to have seen such as jail time difficult to execute given the legislation underpinning criminal and civil justice.
That the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin walked away with huge payoffs while the workers only got statutory redundancy was a clear example of 'one rule for them and another rule for us'.
And nor were we ever 'all in this together' as the subsequent earnings of Osborne and Clegg and David Miliband have shown.
And another pertinent example is the top levels of the police.
Both the appointment of Cressida Dick (after the shooting of de Menezes) and the promotion of Steve Roadhouse (after the VIP child abuse mishandling) are glaring examples of people at the top who apparently never have to pay for mistakes.
We are, in my and others opinion, due a recession and I've been predicting one for 2018-9 since before the 2015 general election.
Nothing too analytical in my prediction beyond it being ten years since the last recession and therefore 'due'.
Given the consumption and construction bubble the UK is in I don't see how a recession can't come at some point soon.
And that's before the possibility of any worldwide cause, the possibility of which have certainly increased.
No recession
UK industrial output peaked in 2000 and has never returned to that level.
The FTSE100 also peaked in 1999 and didn't reach that level again until IIRC 2017.
Levels of home ownership peaked early in 2003 and then declined for more than a decade.
Other indicators such as unemployment and government borrowing also deteriorated after 2001.
So in many ways the UK had the consequences of a mild recession around 2001 but the GDP data said otherwise.
There was a 2001 recession in America and Europe iirc but one which Gordon Brown steered us around (which no doubt contributed to his later hubris).
Yes, Brown's spending kept us out of that minor dip, at the expense of a much bigger downswing later in the noughties.
I am not convinced that we have yet adapted to the political and economic consequences of a much lower long term growth trend. Much of the discontent that is the root of Populism originates there. Neither the Populists of right or left have the answers it seems, though both like to pretend that they do.
There was a belief in the interwar period that bourgeois democracy wasn't up to the challenges of the age, and that feeling has re-emerged. The demographics are different though. Fifty somethings during hard times are just that much less warlike than twentysomethings. The gig economy has its problems, but probably less so than the mass unemployment of the Thirties or Eighties.
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
That the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin walked away with huge payoffs while the workers only got statutory redundancy was a clear example of 'one rule for them and another rule for us'.
And nor were we ever 'all in this together' as the subsequent earnings of Osborne and Clegg and David Miliband have shown.
Instead of moaning and using political slogans I never agreed with anyway. Why don't you tell us what you would have liked to happen to the people in question? Talk about jail time etc given the law they would be tried against would probably not be very fruitful.
You sometimes when commenting don't give a very considered opinion of how things will be dealt with. It is one thing to rage about the injustice of it all another to prosecute the individual's in question given the law they will be judges against. I lost my job in 2008 and became insolvent and had to go bankrupt several years later. I lost my home and had a very rough time but I don't moan about it or go on about banker's. If they had not bailed out the banks many more people would have fallen to the lowest point within society as I did. I am thankful I was not long-term homeless, one night on the streets was enough for me!
No recession between 1992 and 2007/8! 15 or 16 years, so was well overdue by your reckoning. I don't subscribe to the view that the recession 2008 - 2010 was any worse because the period of growth prior to it was so long. It was simply the nature of the beast. A Banking crisis that could have led to systemic collapse of the banking system.
Don't get me wrong I think there will be a recession in the case of No Deal, but before we get to that things are not looking good on international trade, geo-political risk and financial asset indicators...
UK industrial output peaked in 2000 and has never returned to that level.
The FTSE100 also peaked in 1999 and didn't reach that level again until IIRC 2017.
Levels of home ownership peaked early in 2003 and then declined for more than a decade.
Other indicators such as unemployment and government borrowing also deteriorated after 2001.
So in many ways the UK had the consequences of a mild recession around 2001 but the GDP data said otherwise.
I don't disagree with your data.
Industrial output is not really a good thing to use as economic success in the type of advanced economy we live within the UK. Peak North sea oil was around 1999 IIRC and as Industrial output includes that, it is not going to be a good indicator.
Home ownership bobs around and comparative countries i.e. Germany and France for instance have lower home ownership. Again, I would not say that Home ownership is an indicator of economic success. Its a political goal not necessarily an economic one.
Political decisions were made in 2001 to spend a lot of money on public spending, it also coincided with a lot of security threats and the start of wars. I was actually out of work in part of 2001-2002 and so don't dispute the data as I had bad personal experience of unemployment at that time myself.
Its a discussion of a GDP recession versus a more structural shift in the UK economy which I think happened after 2000 and had some similar consequences to a GDP recession.
It was about then that household borrowing really took off and the UK became mired in a permanent trade deficit.
And as RCS has pointed out borrowing money to pay for imported tat gives a real boost to GDP.
He’s willing to give evidence in the SC about the Benn Act . Will this be 30 minutes of surrender repeated ad nauseam to get his fat ugly face on tv and show the true Believers he’s on their side !
Truly pathetic especially as the court doesn’t work this way in this type of case.
1) It seems reasonable to differentiate between national populism and fascism. Going from the widely accepted definitions of the terms, there are clear differences between the two. The crucial one being that speaking of populism makes only real sense in a (still somewhat) democratic environment. Fascism is something that takes place in a post-democratic environment.
But it seems just as reasonable to me, to point out that national populism is the usual breeding ground for fascism. Simplifyingly one might say that fascism is national populism 'on steroids', spiralling out of control and in its course destroying the controlling democratic process.
I wonder if an important difference between 'classic' Fascism and the current populism is the presence of a large section of military veterans (1920's Germany & Italy) ready to act, or a militarised society (1920s Japan). Though we fetishise the armed forces to a degree, they're a relatively minor part of the national conversation. Links between members of the armed forces and far right organisations may be a worrying straw in the wind.
Yes that is a key factor missing from modern Populism. Indeed populist politics is currently often very against overseas military adventures. It is perhaps notable that the contemporary countries with significant Fascist movements are those like Greece with military conscription.
Classical Facism also developed in Europe and Japan during the heyday of Empire, and particularly in those countries that had missed out during the 19th Century scramble for Empire. Those days are gone.
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
Some nationalised banks did remove individuals and key people in those institutions who had 'promised' share and bonus schemes removed. Alas, the people who were punished were probably still millionaires after the censure and the type of punishment 'the public' would have liked to have seen such as jail time difficult to execute given the legislation underpinning criminal and civil justice.
That the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin walked away with huge payoffs while the workers only got statutory redundancy was a clear example of 'one rule for them and another rule for us'.
And nor were we ever 'all in this together' as the subsequent earnings of Osborne and Clegg and David Miliband have shown.
And another pertinent example is the top levels of the police.
Both the appointment of Cressida Dick (after the shooting of de Menezes) and the promotion of Steve Roadhouse (after the VIP child abuse mishandling) are glaring examples of people at the top who apparently never have to pay for mistakes.
On the contrary, they are promoted.
Somebody lied to the Menezes inquiry. It was either Dick or the Surveillance Team. On the evidence given to it, the Inquiry Panel could not tell.
I think her subsequent promotion reflected a view that it wasn't her. Since she took notes as the drama unfolded, and the surveillance team did not, I'm marginally more inclined to believe her, but I certainly wouldn't question the Inquiry Panel's integrity. What I have been told from friends in the force is that there was bad blood between her and the Surveillance Team, and this was probably a contributory factor in the tragedy.
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
That the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin walked away with huge payoffs while the workers only got statutory redundancy was a clear example of 'one rule for them and another rule for us'.
And nor were we ever 'all in this together' as the subsequent earnings of Osborne and Clegg and David Miliband have shown.
Instead of moaning and using political slogans I never agreed with anyway. Why don't you tell us what you would have liked to happen to the people in question? Talk about jail time etc given the law they would be tried against would probably not be very fruitful.
You sometimes when commenting don't give a very considered opinion of how things will be dealt with. It is one thing to rage about the injustice of it all another to prosecute the individual's in question given the law they will be judges against. I lost my job in 2008 and became insolvent and had to go bankrupt several years later. I lost my home and had a very rough time but I don't moan about it or go on about banker's. If they had not bailed out the banks many more people would have fallen to the lowest point within society as I did. I am thankful I was not long-term homeless, one night on the streets was enough for me!
Well, why were Applegarth and Goodwin given huge pay-offs?
In fact, everyone round the table at RBS or Northern Rock who decided to give Applegarth or Goodwin a huge payoff was probably culpable in the huge mismanagement.
It was in the interests of everyone in the room taking the decision to give the huge payoff, & not to have the highly disreputable facts aired in public.
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.
The fact you've decided to tell us the 'correct' result in this 2nd referendum tells me everything about your belief in 'Democracy'.
Idiotchild. He was expressing his belief that staying would be the best outcome and democratic means of getting there are the best method. If you'd stopped to think before posting that spasm, you'd have noticed that you sound like you're saying: "your belief in using a democratic process is undemocratic".
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
That the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin walked away with huge payoffs while the workers only got statutory redundancy was a clear example of 'one rule for them and another rule for us'.
And nor were we ever 'all in this together' as the subsequent earnings of Osborne and Clegg and David Miliband have shown.
Instead of moaning and using political slogans I never agreed with anyway. Why don't you tell us what you would have liked to happen to the people in question? Talk about jail time etc given the law they would be tried against would probably not be very fruitful.
You sometimes when commenting don't give a very considered opinion of how things will be dealt with. It is one thing to rage about the injustice of it all another to prosecute the individual's in question given the law they will be judges against. I lost my job in 2008 and became insolvent and had to go bankrupt several years later. I lost my home and had a very rough time but I don't moan about it or go on about banker's. If they had not bailed out the banks many more people would have fallen to the lowest point within society as I did. I am thankful I was not long-term homeless, one night on the streets was enough for me!
Well if you want an idea how about having everyone in an organisation on the same terms and conditions.
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.
The fact you've decided to tell us the 'correct' result in this 2nd referendum tells me everything about your belief in 'Democracy'.
Idiotchild. He was expressing his belief that staying would be the best outcome and democratic means of getting there are the best method. If you'd stopped to think before posting that spasm, you'd have noticed that you sound like you're saying: "your belief in using a democratic process is undemocratic".
Try to engage your grey matter next time.
The first word interaction you have with me is an insult. I do wish there was an 'ignore' function on PB, but then I suspect very little would actually get seen.
Populism occurs when the difference between 'one rule for us and another rule for them' becomes too great.
Do you have a current UK example of 'one rule for us and another rule for them' that you think is driving populism?
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
It could have refused to bail out 1 or 2 of the most badly managed banks with the biggest losses, for example Northern Rock eg the US government let Lehmans go bankrupt
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.
The fact you've decided to tell us the 'correct' result in this 2nd referendum tells me everything about your belief in 'Democracy'.
There is nothing democratic about rerunning a vote until you get the answer you want. Especially if you alter the question to be favourable to the preferred result.
It's important to remember that the polls in 2017 weren't wrong. They correctly recorded an increase in Labour support during the campaign, and got the final result pretty much right.
If Remain gets 34% of the first round, the weaker of the two leave options drops out for the second round; then it's a straight run-off between Remain and the preferred Leave option, which, given Leave got 66% of the first round, should be a foregone conclusion.
Where's your 'will of the people' Leaver confidence?
If you want non-election-nerds to understand this against a determined attempt to misunderstand it you're best doing two rounds, ie 1) What's brexit 2) Now you know what it is you still want to do it, right?
Two distinct votes are much harder to demagogue than anything involving ranking or transfers.
If Remain gets 34% of the first round, the weaker of the two leave options drops out for the second round; then it's a straight run-off between Remain and the preferred Leave option, which, given Leave got 66% of the first round, should be a foregone conclusion.
Where's your 'will of the people' Leaver confidence?
If you want non-election-nerds to understand this against a determined attempt to misunderstand it you're best doing two rounds, ie 1) What's brexit 2) Now you know what it is you still want to do it, right?
Two distinct votes are much harder to demagogue than anything involving ranking or transfers.
This is a dangerous game. Because it means it should apply to every change in what "European Union membership" means. E.g. if the Eurozone federalises, any Remain vote is thus invalidated on the same logic.
It's important to remember that the polls in 2017 weren't wrong. They correctly recorded an increase in Labour support during the campaign, and got the final result pretty much right.
It's polls that are taken before an election is called that I think are red herrings.
Another massive loss to what used to be the Conservative Party.
To an extent but as last week's Aberdeen council by election showed the Tory vote is still largely holding up despite Ruth's departure.
It does increase the chances of the next non SNP and Unionist First Minister being a LD rather than a Tory though given the biggest gains in recent Scottish polls have been by the Scottish Liberal Democrats
LOL, you are mental, you will not be living to see that unless independence comes.
My long shot top is Swinson narrowly loses her Westminster seat to the SNP at the next election due to Tory tactical unwind over her anti Brexit stance, she then stands for Holyrood and becomes First Minister in 2021 instead after 14 years of SNP rule.
Chuka then succeeds her as UK LD leader after winning his Cities of London and Westminster seat helped by Labour tactical voting and aims for PM in 2024
Your Scottish wish is a million miles out, the Lib Dems could not run a bath and will never be in power in Scotland.
I could see the LDs sweeping Edinburgh, Aberdeen, rural and suburban Scotland even if Glasgow and the central belt stays SNP
The central belt is suburban Scotland!
Most of it is working class, ex industrial. Plenty of suburbs around Edinburgh and Aberdeen
The central belt includes Edinburgh & environs.
Edinburgh and Lothian are not really central belt more at its outer edge, culturally Edinburgh has more in common with Aberdeen than the central belt as a whole
So - this special UK-US relationship and the even more special one between Trump and Boris - what are the chances that it might yield some benefits for the parents of the UK teenager killed by a car driven by a US diplomat’s wife?
Or is it just more meaningless empty PR bluster?
And how does she live with herself, with her conscience, knowing that she is responsible, at least in part for a young man’s death?
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.
The fact you've decided to tell us the 'correct' result in this 2nd referendum tells me everything about your belief in 'Democracy'.
Idiotchild. He was expressing his belief that staying would be the best outcome and democratic means of getting there are the best method. If you'd stopped to think before posting that spasm, you'd have noticed that you sound like you're saying: "your belief in using a democratic process is undemocratic".
Try to engage your grey matter next time.
The first word interaction you have with me is an insult. I do wish there was an 'ignore' function on PB, but then I suspect very little would actually get seen.
Populism occurs when the difference between 'one rule for us and another rule for them' becomes too great.
Do you have a current UK example of 'one rule for us and another rule for them' that you think is driving populism?
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
It could have refused to bail out 1 or 2 of the most badly managed banks with the biggest losses, for example Northern Rock eg the US government let Lehmans go bankrupt
Problem with this is that Northern Rock was retail. Far too close to the average voter.
I agree that it would have made sense for them to have been allowed to collapse. It would have increased the initial shock but shortened the overall duration. But politically it was impossible.
What we were left with was long term polluted system, with zombie institutions.
If Remain gets 34% of the first round, the weaker of the two leave options drops out for the second round; then it's a straight run-off between Remain and the preferred Leave option, which, given Leave got 66% of the first round, should be a foregone conclusion.
Where's your 'will of the people' Leaver confidence?
If you want non-election-nerds to understand this against a determined attempt to misunderstand it you're best doing two rounds, ie 1) What's brexit 2) Now you know what it is you still want to do it, right?
Two distinct votes are much harder to demagogue than anything involving ranking or transfers.
This is a dangerous game. Because it means it should apply to every change in what "European Union membership" means. E.g. if the Eurozone federalises, any Remain vote is thus invalidated on the same logic.
That's not a *danger* - if enough of the voters still want to leave and the voters aren't sick of referendums on the question then there will be more of them, it doesn't matter whether somebody has a consistent line of precedent.
However I'd say there's now a whole generation of voters that would see "new referendum to try to leave the EU" the same way 1920s voters would have seen "let's do trench warfare in europe again". If Remain wins a referendum, I think the Leave side are more likely to just say it was invalid and pledge to enact the previous one, rather than trying to come up with a procedural justification for making it the best of three.
Populism occurs when the difference between 'one rule for us and another rule for them' becomes too great.
Do you have a current UK example of 'one rule for us and another rule for them' that you think is driving populism?
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
It could have refused to bail out 1 or 2 of the most badly managed banks with the biggest losses, for example Northern Rock eg the US government let Lehmans go bankrupt
Problem with this is that Northern Rock was retail. Far too close to the average voter.
I agree that it would have made sense for them to have been allowed to collapse. It would have increased the initial shock but shortened the overall duration. But politically it was impossible.
What we were left with was long term polluted system, with zombie institutions.
Better to have pulled off the plaster quickly.
Had the government not given any bailouts at least HSBC, Barclays and Lloyds would have survived without going bust or being taken over, none of those 3 were insolvent (though Lloyds would probably not have taken over HBOS)
Populism occurs when the difference between 'one rule for us and another rule for them' becomes too great.
Do you have a current UK example of 'one rule for us and another rule for them' that you think is driving populism?
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
It could have refused to bail out 1 or 2 of the most badly managed banks with the biggest losses, for example Northern Rock eg the US government let Lehmans go bankrupt
Problem with this is that Northern Rock was retail. Far too close to the average voter.
I agree that it would have made sense for them to have been allowed to collapse. It would have increased the initial shock but shortened the overall duration. But politically it was impossible.
What we were left with was long term polluted system, with zombie institutions.
Better to have pulled off the plaster quickly.
No, the problem with that is the Americans letting Lehmans go to the wall turned a disaster into a crisis. If the Fed had bailed out Lehman Brothers, the global financial crisis might never have happened. The markets froze because counterparties could no longer be trusted and no-one knew who owed what to whom.
Populism occurs when the difference between 'one rule for us and another rule for them' becomes too great.
Do you have a current UK example of 'one rule for us and another rule for them' that you think is driving populism?
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
It could have refused to bail out 1 or 2 of the most badly managed banks with the biggest losses, for example Northern Rock eg the US government let Lehmans go bankrupt
Problem with this is that Northern Rock was retail. Far too close to the average voter.
I agree that it would have made sense for them to have been allowed to collapse. It would have increased the initial shock but shortened the overall duration. But politically it was impossible.
What we were left with was long term polluted system, with zombie institutions.
Better to have pulled off the plaster quickly.
Had the government not given any bailouts at least HSBC, Barclays and Lloyds would have survived without going bust or being taken over, none of those 3 were insolvent (though Lloyds would probably not have taken over HBOS)
Barclays has severe problems and was effectively bailed out by the Qataris HSBC was insulated due to its concerns being mainly in the Far East.
Lloyds I agree was compromised by Brown forcing them to absorb HBOS. How did diligence was passed God only knows. There should have been an enquiry on that alone.
RBS should have been let go as well as Northern Rock, both for different reasons as their problems were actually very different.
But again they were far too headline. Politicians playing in things they didn’t understand and playing to the gallery.
Populism occurs when the difference between 'one rule for us and another rule for them' becomes too great.
Do you have a current UK example of 'one rule for us and another rule for them' that you think is driving populism?
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
It could have refused to bail out 1 or 2 of the most badly managed banks with the biggest losses, for example Northern Rock eg the US government let Lehmans go bankrupt
I think Lehmans was an investment bank. RBS etc were retail banks, some of which also were engaged in investment bank activity. The UK, clearly had an incompetent oversight institution as a result of the creation of the Financial Service Authority FSA. On its inception in the 1990s the fsa acquired from the bank of england certain governance tools, which it failed to use. Banking in the UK has undergone some organisational changes since the financial crisis as has corporate structuring forced to change. The US type Lehmans type of failing was more akin to bearings bank in the UK in the 1990s on a much smaller scale. If retail banks fail it is more of a problem than soley an investment bank imo.
Populism occurs when the difference between 'one rule for us and another rule for them' becomes too great.
Do you have a current UK example of 'one rule for us and another rule for them' that you think is driving populism?
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
Which relates to another aspect - no matter how incompetent, how venal, how mendacious or how criminal the 'people like them' are they are widely believed to be protected from any negative consequences.
Voters are not blameless.
If the opinion polls are to be believed one of the most incompetent and mendacious politicians around is likely to be rewarded with a significant majority at the next GE.
It’s not just bankers and senior policeman who escape the consequences of their actions but politicians too.
Voters say they want integrity and honesty. But do they reward it with their votes?
Populism occurs when the difference between 'one rule for us and another rule for them' becomes too great.
Do you have a current UK example of 'one rule for us and another rule for them' that you think is driving populism?
I suspect the key turning point was when the banks were bailed out.
Yes, good example. I can see why that would fit the bill.
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
It could have refused to bail out 1 or 2 of the most badly managed banks with the biggest losses, for example Northern Rock eg the US government let Lehmans go bankrupt
Problem with this is that Northern Rock was retail. Far too close to the average voter.
I agree that it would have made sense for them to have been allowed to collapse. It would have increased the initial shock but shortened the overall duration. But politically it was impossible.
What we were left with was long term polluted system, with zombie institutions.
Better to have pulled off the plaster quickly.
No, the problem with that is the Americans letting Lehmans go to the wall turned a disaster into a crisis. If the Fed had bailed out Lehman Brothers, the global financial crisis might never have happened. The markets froze because counterparties could no longer be trusted and no-one knew who owed what to whom.
I don’t disagree. At all. But Lehman’s was completely gone.
Comments
I am confident the chance of statues of Boris ever appearing in market squares across the UK is even less than the chance of his so-called 'deal' becoming an actual deal.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/18/no-deal-brexit-would-plunge-britain-into-a-recession-says-obr
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/money/abandoned-how-the-poor-lost-bank-branches-but-the-rich-kept-theirs-q30rkjxwr
Which reveals Wentworth & Dearne to be the first constituency to become bankless.
Why is it a stitch up?
It is quite obvious that they oppose a referendum because they fear it has changed.
But interesting that the most severe Brexit outcome is now deemed less damaging than one of the Treasury's scenarios of the effect of mere vote.
Especially given that the world economic situation is looking distinctly sour and that the UK's consumption bubble is overdue to turn into recession in any case.
I see no reason to not believe their expertise.
If Remain gets 34% of the first round, the weaker of the two leave options drops out for the second round; then it's a straight run-off between Remain and the preferred Leave option, which, given Leave got 66% of the first round, should be a foregone conclusion.
Where's your 'will of the people' Leaver confidence?
Id be happy to take some evens a recession within 4 quarters after a no deal for example.
Isnt that cheap money for the likes of Rees-Moggs finance firm to take if they believe what they say do?
And where did you say that this hypothetical referendum you are so certain of winning was a 2 stage affair?
The 2016 referendum was the brainchild of the Remain backing PM who told us it was a once in a generation vote that would be implemented with no turning back.
Where did I say I was certain of winning it?
Tbh I suspect Leave with a Deal will win, but even though I'd prefer us to Remain, at least we'd have got to the end of the process and the electorate would have voted for the terms of the way we Leave.
I love how Brexiteers' forecasts of an economic boon from leaving has become "we were due a recession anyway". At least nobody on here is still talking up the absurd Patrick Minford.
I'm a bit hesitant to post this comment because I haven't read the book, but anyway here are the two cents that I have taken away from your review:
1) It seems reasonable to differentiate between national populism and fascism. Going from the widely accepted definitions of the terms, there are clear differences between the two. The crucial one being that speaking of populism makes only real sense in a (still somewhat) democratic environment. Fascism is something that takes place in a post-democratic environment.
But it seems just as reasonable to me, to point out that national populism is the usual breeding ground for fascism. Simplifyingly one might say that fascism is national populism 'on steroids', spiralling out of control and in its course destroying the controlling democratic process.
2) I think it's important, but difficult, to at least try to differentiate between populist policies and popular policies. How to do that?
My attempt at a definition would be that popular policies are those policies whose proponents succeed in accurately describing and honestly explaining the objectives, the procedural mechanics and, most importantly, the expected outcomes of those, and then win public favour for them.
Discerning populist from popular policies seems to always imply a modicum of dishonesty and deception.
The electorate is not a monolithic bloc, otherwise elections would be redundant. But neither is the individual voter's mind, at least in most cases, a firm, monolithic, coherent structure.
I think in most cases there is a more or less wide gap between what the individual (objectively) understands to be correct and what he 'feels' to be right and proper, and I think that populism mostly thrives within that gap.
Proverbially, voters can vote either 'with their head or with their heart' and I believe that the term populism should describe a situation where political actors succeed in deceiving the voter's 'head' in regard to their genuine, legitimate interest by appealing to their 'heart', either their deeply held (often covert) resentments or their affectionate sentiments.
A classic example for the latter being politicians promoting a tax-cut policy (sometimes even without corresponding cuts in state expenditure or deliberately taking on a higher debt burden) by promising a magical 'trickling down' of the expected gain in wealth from the fortunate few to the unfortunate many, which then in practice does not occur, unless forced by active measures of redistribution.
There seems to be ample evidence for the possibility of confusing enough voters 'heads' to vote for policy proposals which their 'hearts' wish to be feasible, but really are not.
Nothing too analytical in my prediction beyond it being ten years since the last recession and therefore 'due'.
Given the consumption and construction bubble the UK is in I don't see how a recession can't come at some point soon.
And that's before the possibility of any worldwide cause, the possibility of which have certainly increased.
Give it up and focus on a party that can offer rejoin.
Don't get me wrong I think there will be a recession in the case of No Deal, but before we get to that things are not looking good on international trade, geo-political risk and financial asset indicators...
https://twitter.com/chrisgiles_/status/1180543762205986821?s=21
A no-deal Brexit would boost the UK economy by £1.1 trillion over 15 years, Jacob Rees-Mogg has said
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/10/jacob-rees-mogg-no-deal-brexit-will-boost-uk-economy-11-trillion/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49953914
The government had few choices given it needed to keep money flowing for businesses and individuals but could and should have been handled better. The worst aspect was that many of those who caused the issue were seen to escape unscathed.
If there are prominent leavers who are having the vapours about a GNU because of fastidiousness over “national unity”, I'd love to see their moral workings.
I wish I wrote German as well as you write English. In fact I wish I wrote English as well as you do.
The FTSE100 also peaked in 1999 and didn't reach that level again until IIRC 2017.
Levels of home ownership peaked early in 2003 and then declined for more than a decade.
Other indicators such as unemployment and government borrowing also deteriorated after 2001.
So in many ways the UK had the consequences of a mild recession around 2001 but the GDP data said otherwise.
Industrial output is not really a good thing to use as economic success in the type of advanced economy we live within the UK. Peak North sea oil was around 1999 IIRC and as Industrial output includes that, it is not going to be a good indicator.
Home ownership bobs around and comparative countries i.e. Germany and France for instance have lower home ownership. Again, I would not say that Home ownership is an indicator of economic success. Its a political goal not necessarily an economic one.
Political decisions were made in 2001 to spend a lot of money on public spending, it also coincided with a lot of security threats and the start of wars. I was actually out of work in part of 2001-2002 and so don't dispute the data as I had bad personal experience of unemployment at that time myself.
And nor were we ever 'all in this together' as the subsequent earnings of Osborne and Clegg and David Miliband have shown.
For those interested the theme is explored in:
Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, by Barrington Moore.
Both the appointment of Cressida Dick (after the shooting of de Menezes) and the promotion of Steve Roadhouse (after the VIP child abuse mishandling) are glaring examples of people at the top who apparently never have to pay for mistakes.
On the contrary, they are promoted.
I am not convinced that we have yet adapted to the political and economic consequences of a much lower long term growth trend. Much of the discontent that is the root of Populism originates there. Neither the Populists of right or left have the answers it seems, though both like to pretend that they do.
There was a belief in the interwar period that bourgeois democracy wasn't up to the challenges of the age, and that feeling has re-emerged. The demographics are different though. Fifty somethings during hard times are just that much less warlike than twentysomethings. The gig economy has its problems, but probably less so than the mass unemployment of the Thirties or Eighties.
Why don't you tell us what you would have liked to happen to the people in question? Talk about jail time etc given the law they would be tried against would probably not be very fruitful.
You sometimes when commenting don't give a very considered opinion of how things will be dealt with. It is one thing to rage about the injustice of it all another to prosecute the individual's in question given the law they will be judges against. I lost my job in 2008 and became insolvent and had to go bankrupt several years later. I lost my home and had a very rough time but I don't moan about it or go on about banker's. If they had not bailed out the banks many more people would have fallen to the lowest point within society as I did. I am thankful I was not long-term homeless, one night on the streets was enough for me!
It was about then that household borrowing really took off and the UK became mired in a permanent trade deficit.
And as RCS has pointed out borrowing money to pay for imported tat gives a real boost to GDP.
He’s willing to give evidence in the SC about the Benn Act . Will this be 30 minutes of surrender repeated ad nauseam to get his fat ugly face on tv and show the true Believers he’s on their side !
Truly pathetic especially as the court doesn’t work this way in this type of case.
Classical Facism also developed in Europe and Japan during the heyday of Empire, and particularly in those countries that had missed out during the 19th Century scramble for Empire. Those days are gone.
I think her subsequent promotion reflected a view that it wasn't her. Since she took notes as the drama unfolded, and the surveillance team did not, I'm marginally more inclined to believe her, but I certainly wouldn't question the Inquiry Panel's integrity. What I have been told from friends in the force is that there was bad blood between her and the Surveillance Team, and this was probably a contributory factor in the tragedy.
In fact, everyone round the table at RBS or Northern Rock who decided to give Applegarth or Goodwin a huge payoff was probably culpable in the huge mismanagement.
It was in the interests of everyone in the room taking the decision to give the huge payoff, & not to have the highly disreputable facts aired in public.
If you'd stopped to think before posting that spasm, you'd have noticed that you sound like you're saying:
"your belief in using a democratic process is undemocratic".
Try to engage your grey matter next time.
I do wish there was an 'ignore' function on PB, but then I suspect very little would actually get seen.
1) What's brexit
2) Now you know what it is you still want to do it, right?
Two distinct votes are much harder to demagogue than anything involving ranking or transfers.
Or is it just more meaningless empty PR bluster?
And how does she live with herself, with her conscience, knowing that she is responsible, at least in part for a young man’s death?
I agree that it would have made sense for them to have been allowed to collapse. It would have increased the initial shock but shortened the overall duration. But politically it was impossible.
What we were left with was long term polluted system, with zombie institutions.
Better to have pulled off the plaster quickly.
However I'd say there's now a whole generation of voters that would see "new referendum to try to leave the EU" the same way 1920s voters would have seen "let's do trench warfare in europe again". If Remain wins a referendum, I think the Leave side are more likely to just say it was invalid and pledge to enact the previous one, rather than trying to come up with a procedural justification for making it the best of three.
Lloyds I agree was compromised by Brown forcing them to absorb HBOS. How did diligence was passed God only knows. There should have been an enquiry on that alone.
RBS should have been let go as well as Northern Rock, both for different reasons as their problems were actually very different.
But again they were far too headline. Politicians playing in things they didn’t understand and playing to the gallery.
If the opinion polls are to be believed one of the most incompetent and mendacious politicians around is likely to be rewarded with a significant majority at the next GE.
It’s not just bankers and senior policeman who escape the consequences of their actions but politicians too.
Voters say they want integrity and honesty. But do they reward it with their votes?
Lehman’s was in far far too much trouble.
ML was saved with help of BOA as well as AIG.