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.
Given we are still in the EU 3 years after the vote how exactly is that supposed to work?
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.
The global crisis had already happened the question was whether taxpayers bailed out all the banks in need or capitalism took its natural course and let us not forget the US House of Representatives initially preferred the latter course and voted down the bailout on its first vote before the market crash saw it narrowly vote for it on a second vote
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?
Voters gave the biggest mandate since the war to Leave the EU, MPs ignored it, so if it takes a mendacious and ruthless politician to respect democracy and their vote so be it
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.
This is exactly true with respect to the FSA. They didn’t or understand in any way the complex debt instruments being used. Neither did the treasury. Or the politicians.
What the politicians did understand and appreciate very much was the cheap cash that allowed voters to buy houses they really couldn’t afford (happy voters!) and the bonanza of tax revenue generated from banking profits and a runaway housing boom.
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.
Yes but Barclays needed no state bailout, it raised enough private capital to survive. HSBC as you confirm would also have survived helped by its Far East business (though its predecessor Midland Bank may not have done).
Had Lloyds not been promised state aid to take over HBOS I doubt they would have done so.
I agree RBS and Northern Rock could have been let go
The full story of why RBS got into trouble has yet to be made public.
The government and regulators had a very good opportunity indeed to stop the disaster a full 18 months before the bailout but they were too stupid to take it, despite being warned on numerous occasions.
The reason RBS had to be bailed out was because so many payments for businesses and individuals went through it that had it closed - and it was hours from doing so - it was highly likely that the entire British financial system would have collapsed, including every other bank and building society, no matter how profitable. Unfashionable as it may be to say this it was the voters’ current accounts and savings which were being bailed out.
And just for the record Goodwin did not get a payoff. He was allowed to keep his humungous pension, largely a decision of Lord Myners, a City Minister at the time and involved in the rescue and probably because given what the government was dealing with at the time the pension was utterly insignificant, in monetary terms, though not from a PR perspective.
Never again should banks - let alone one bank - be allowed to get so over-dominant.
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.
Certainly providing clearer separation between retail and investment banks was important
All honesty, I wouldn't mind that. Arguably, he was the biggest loser from 2015. Cameron promised something he didn't want to give, and didn't plan for anything other than a 'Remain' outcome.
If Cameron had just been honest, refused to give the referendum, likely he would've ended up in a hung Parliament. And we'd have had four years of 'chaos' with Ed Miliband instead. Only right he should get a go.
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.
Certainly providing clearer separation between retail and investment banks was important
Indeed. I waffled on but that is what I was getting too!
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?
Voters gave the biggest mandate since the war to Leave the EU, MPs ignored it, so if it takes a mendacious and ruthless politician to respect democracy and their vote so be it
In other words, you have no principled objection to lying politicians, providing the lie is one you favour.
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.
This is exactly true with respect to the FSA. They didn’t or understand in any way the complex debt instruments being used. Neither did the treasury. Or the politicians.
What the politicians did understand and appreciate very much was the cheap cash that allowed voters to buy houses they really couldn’t afford (happy voters!) and the bonanza of tax revenue generated from banking profits and a runaway housing boom.
Makes one wonder, what mistakes are being made at this time!
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?
Voters gave the biggest mandate since the war to Leave the EU, MPs ignored it, so if it takes a mendacious and ruthless politician to respect democracy and their vote so be it
In other words, you have no principled objection to lying politicians, providing the lie is one you favour.
Well MPs lied they would respect the EU referendum vote when they voted for the referendum so if it takes a liar to deliver it so be it
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.
Certainly providing clearer separation between retail and investment banks was important
That may be necessary but does not help when a retail bank (Northern Rock) funds itself almost entirely in the wholesale money markets. It is the inter-connectedness of different types of markets which is one of the issues and simply separating retail from investment banking is not enough.
All honesty, I wouldn't mind that. Arguably, he was the biggest loser from 2015. Cameron promised something he didn't want to give, and didn't plan for anything other than a 'Remain' outcome.
If Cameron had just been honest, refused to give the referendum, likely he would've ended up in a hung Parliament. And we'd have had four years of 'chaos' with Ed Miliband instead. Only right he should get a go.
We wouldn't, we would just have had another 5 years of a Tory-LD coalition with no EU referendum
Labour, LD and SNP and Green and Plaid MPs are not enough to make Miliband PM, he needs the votes of the 21 Tory rebels too and I doubt they will provide them
The full story of why RBS got into trouble has yet to be made public.
Well, that by itself is pretty shocking.
Come on, you’re not really shocked are you. A report by a regulator manages to avoid writing about what the regulator knew and when it knew it. Whoever would think that such a thing might happen.
The full story of why RBS got into trouble has yet to be made public.
Well, that by itself is pretty shocking.
Come on, you’re not really shocked are you. A report by a regulator manages to avoid writing about what the regulator knew and when it knew it. Whoever would think that such a thing might happen.
One day .....
Actually, I am surprised that there has not been more of a clamour for a public inquiry into the banking crisis, especially as it had a dramatic effect on many people's lives.
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.
This is exactly true with respect to the FSA. They didn’t or understand in any way the complex debt instruments being used. Neither did the treasury. Or the politicians.
What the politicians did understand and appreciate very much was the cheap cash that allowed voters to buy houses they really couldn’t afford (happy voters!) and the bonanza of tax revenue generated from banking profits and a runaway housing boom.
Makes one wonder, what mistakes are being made at this time!
The PRA under the BOE is actually much better.
But you only know about something going wrong when it actually goes wrong. We can only minimise unplanned risk. We can never completely avoid it.
And by unplanned risk I mean risk that is not factored in the particular business model . All Banking and insurance requires managed risk.
The full story of why RBS got into trouble has yet to be made public.
Well, that by itself is pretty shocking.
Come on, you’re not really shocked are you. A report by a regulator manages to avoid writing about what the regulator knew and when it knew it. Whoever would think that such a thing might happen.
One day .....
And you wonder why people don't trust the establishment / government / regulators ?
The full story of why RBS got into trouble has yet to be made public.
The government and regulators had a very good opportunity indeed to stop the disaster a full 18 months before the bailout but they were too stupid to take it, despite being warned on numerous occasions.
The reason RBS had to be bailed out was because so many payments for businesses and individuals went through it that had it closed - and it was hours from doing so - it was highly likely that the entire British financial system would have collapsed, including every other bank and building society, no matter how profitable. Unfashionable as it may be to say this it was the voters’ current accounts and savings which were being bailed out.
And just for the record Goodwin did not get a payoff. He was allowed to keep his humungous pension, largely a decision of Lord Myners, a City Minister at the time and involved in the rescue and probably because given what the government was dealing with at the time the pension was utterly insignificant, in monetary terms, though not from a PR perspective.
Never again should banks - let alone one bank - be allowed to get so over-dominant.
+ 1. Well put.
I remember in the business pages seeing RBS assimilate many companies and grow exponentially in just a few years. I even worked for one of the insurance companies within it! This is why regulation is required to stop companies getting out of hand! Too liberal governance is as bad as over regulation. It is an evolving process that requires foresight as well as oversight.
Labour, LD and SNP and Green and Plaid MPs are not enough to make Miliband PM, he needs the votes of the 21 Tory rebels too and I doubt they will provide them
The full story of why RBS got into trouble has yet to be made public.
Well, that by itself is pretty shocking.
Come on, you’re not really shocked are you. A report by a regulator manages to avoid writing about what the regulator knew and when it knew it. Whoever would think that such a thing might happen.
One day .....
And you wonder why people don't trust the establishment / government / regulators ?
As well as Prime Ministers calling people with concerns about immigration “bigots”.
Labour, LD and SNP and Green and Plaid MPs are not enough to make Miliband PM, he needs the votes of the 21 Tory rebels too and I doubt they will provide them
There is no way Corby is going to allow this.
It is like asking him to sit on an electric chair and turn the current on.
Corby is not going to permit the person he replaced to walk into No 10. No way.
My opinion is Corby is not going to let anyone but himself into No 10.
Labour, LD and SNP and Green and Plaid MPs are not enough to make Miliband PM, he needs the votes of the 21 Tory rebels too and I doubt they will provide them
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?
Voters gave the biggest mandate since the war to Leave the EU, MPs ignored it, so if it takes a mendacious and ruthless politician to respect democracy and their vote so be it
In other words, you have no principled objection to lying politicians, providing the lie is one you favour.
Well MPs lied they would respect the EU referendum vote when they voted for the referendum so if it takes a liar to deliver it so be it
I see we are back to the ends justifying the means.
Does it not bother you that that meme, which you seem to be comfortable with, has been responsible for some of the darkest episodes in human history?
The full story of why RBS got into trouble has yet to be made public.
Well, that by itself is pretty shocking.
Come on, you’re not really shocked are you. A report by a regulator manages to avoid writing about what the regulator knew and when it knew it. Whoever would think that such a thing might happen.
One day .....
Actually, I am surprised that there has not been more of a clamour for a public inquiry into the banking crisis, especially as it had a dramatic effect on many people's lives.
There were the hearings of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Banking Standards chaired by Andrew Tyrie. Lots of people, including senior bankers, were hauled before it. Some of the sessions were so cringe-worthy you had to watch from behind the sofa.
The report is very well worth reading. It has been invaluable to me in my work.
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.
The global crisis had already happened the question was whether taxpayers bailed out all the banks in need or capitalism took its natural course and let us not forget the US House of Representatives initially preferred the latter course and voted down the bailout on its first vote before the market crash saw it narrowly vote for it on a second vote
The GFC, whatever its roots in derivatives of sub-prime mortgages, quickly became a liquidity crisis, especially once it was seen banks would be allowed to fail. The Fed needed to step in to guarantee liquidity. Similarly the Bank of England and European Central Bank. Morality tales around laws of capitalism completely miss the point.
The full story of why RBS got into trouble has yet to be made public.
Well, that by itself is pretty shocking.
Come on, you’re not really shocked are you. A report by a regulator manages to avoid writing about what the regulator knew and when it knew it. Whoever would think that such a thing might happen.
One day .....
And you wonder why people don't trust the establishment / government / regulators ?
I don’t wonder. There are few people more cynical than me.
Labour, LD and SNP and Green and Plaid MPs are not enough to make Miliband PM, he needs the votes of the 21 Tory rebels too and I doubt they will provide them
There is no way Corby is going to allow this.
It is like asking him to sit on an electric chair and turn the current on.
Corby is not going to permit the person he replaced to walk into No 10. No way.
My opinion is Corby is not going to let anyone but himself into No 10.
I would welcome Ed Miliband as caretaker PM. Anybody who takes the role is in office not in power. For all we know Corbyn might not want to head such an impure Labour Government but he does not want a Tory/No Deal one either! So he backs Ed as interim PM!
Labour, LD and SNP and Green and Plaid MPs are not enough to make Miliband PM, he needs the votes of the 21 Tory rebels too and I doubt they will provide them
There is no way Corby is going to allow this.
It is like asking him to sit on an electric chair and turn the current on.
Corby is not going to permit the person he replaced to walk into No 10. No way.
My opinion is Corby is not going to let anyone but himself into No 10.
I would welcome Ed Miliband as caretaker PM. Anybody who takes the role is in office not in power. For all we know Corbyn might not want such an impure Government but he does not want a Tory/No Deal one either!
Corby probably doesn't give a shit about Deal or No Deal. But, he really cares about maintaining the Left's control of the Labour Party.
It is incredibly dangerous for Corby (and for Momentum's grip on the Labour Party) to let some else from Labour into No 10.
It is like asking him to sit on an electric chair and turn the current on.
Corby is not going to permit the person he replaced to walk into No 10. No way.
My opinion is Corby is not going to let anyone but himself into No 10.
Yup, I certainly can't see any of the Labour grandees flying, they'd be a threat to Corbyn's job as Labour leader, and by extension his team's control of the party. Once in the PM's job they do something popular, stick it to the Tories, take the members with them and dispose of Corbyn at their leisure.
The only way I see Corbyn letting another Labour MP through is if it's *his* succession plan, ie as a way to get his preferred successor into the leader's spot without first winning a membership vote. But they likely have similar problems getting LD/ex-Con support as Corbyn himself.
Once you eliminate Corbyn (marxist cooties), Lab (internal threat), LD (competing with Lab for votes, worse than the Tories etc), Nats and Greens (similar) and ex-Cons (YUK, TORIES) the only remaining possibility is Sylvia Hermon, but I doubt Corbyn will go for that unless things get really bad.
The only way I see Corbyn letting another Labour MP through is if it's *his* succession plan, ie as a way to get his preferred successor into the leader's spot without first winning a membership vote. But they likely have similar problems getting LD/ex-Con support as Corbyn himself.
The same thought occurred to me.
I agree that his anointed successor is the only person Corby will step aside for.
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?
Voters gave the biggest mandate since the war to Leave the EU, MPs ignored it, so if it takes a mendacious and ruthless politician to respect democracy and their vote so be it
In other words, you have no principled objection to lying politicians, providing the lie is one you favour.
Well MPs lied they would respect the EU referendum vote when they voted for the referendum so if it takes a liar to deliver it so be it
I see we are back to the ends justifying the means.
Does it not bother you that that meme, which you seem to be comfortable with, has been responsible for some of the darkest episodes in human history?
Denying democracy and the will of the people has certainly led to some of the darkest episodes in human history
Labour, LD and SNP and Green and Plaid MPs are not enough to make Miliband PM, he needs the votes of the 21 Tory rebels too and I doubt they will provide them
There is no way Corby is going to allow this.
It is like asking him to sit on an electric chair and turn the current on.
Corby is not going to permit the person he replaced to walk into No 10. No way.
My opinion is Corby is not going to let anyone but himself into No 10.
Yes, Corbyn and his followers would rather a hard left Labour opposition than a moderate Labour government
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?
Voters gave the biggest mandate since the war to Leave the EU, MPs ignored it, so if it takes a mendacious and ruthless politician to respect democracy and their vote so be it
In other words, you have no principled objection to lying politicians, providing the lie is one you favour.
Well MPs lied they would respect the EU referendum vote when they voted for the referendum so if it takes a liar to deliver it so be it
I see we are back to the ends justifying the means.
Does it not bother you that that meme, which you seem to be comfortable with, has been responsible for some of the darkest episodes in human history?
Denying democracy and the will of the people has certainly led to some of the darkest episodes in human history
What was the prorogation of parliament anything but denying democracy? 2016 had no legal impact whereas trying to shut Parliament down does....
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?
Voters gave the biggest mandate since the war to Leave the EU, MPs ignored it, so if it takes a mendacious and ruthless politician to respect democracy and their vote so be it
In other words, you have no principled objection to lying politicians, providing the lie is one you favour.
Well MPs lied they would respect the EU referendum vote when they voted for the referendum so if it takes a liar to deliver it so be it
I see we are back to the ends justifying the means.
Does it not bother you that that meme, which you seem to be comfortable with, has been responsible for some of the darkest episodes in human history?
Denying democracy and the will of the people has certainly led to some of the darkest episodes in human history
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?
Voters gave the biggest mandate since the war to Leave the EU, MPs ignored it, so if it takes a mendacious and ruthless politician to respect democracy and their vote so be it
In other words, you have no principled objection to lying politicians, providing the lie is one you favour.
Well MPs lied they would respec it so be it
I see we are back to the ends justidarkest episodes in human history?
Denying democracy and the will of the people has certainly led to some of the darkest episodes in human history
What was the prorogation of parliament anything but denying democracy? 2016 had no legal impact whereas trying to shut Parliament down does....
Parliament voted for the Benn Act to block No Deal before Parliament was prorogued, 2016's Leave vote was the biggest vote for anything in postwar British history
The Brexit party doing well in her seat is probably exactly what she wants, not many people would be surprised if they didn't win the seat, but hoovering up a large portion of the non Labour votes would help Cooper a lot.
It is like asking him to sit on an electric chair and turn the current on.
Corby is not going to permit the person he replaced to walk into No 10. No way.
My opinion is Corby is not going to let anyone but himself into No 10.
Yup, I certainly can't see any of the Labour grandees flying, they'd be a threat to Corbyn's job as Labour leader, and by extension his team's control of the party. Once in the PM's job they do something popular, stick it to the Tories, take the members with them and dispose of Corbyn at their leisure.
The only way I see Corbyn letting another Labour MP through is if it's *his* succession plan, ie as a way to get his preferred successor into the leader's spot without first winning a membership vote. But they likely have similar problems getting LD/ex-Con support as Corbyn himself.
Once you eliminate Corbyn (marxist cooties), Lab (internal threat), LD (competing with Lab for votes, worse than the Tories etc), Nats and Greens (similar) and ex-Cons (YUK, TORIES) the only remaining possibility is Sylvia Hermon, but I doubt Corbyn will go for that unless things get really bad.
She's my longshot bet for the gig, Ed. However she takes no prisoners and was scathing about Boris's recent EU proposals. Also, I believe she dislikes Corbyn with a passion. Apart from that she is intelligent, independent, principled and able.
The only way I see Corbyn letting another Labour MP through is if it's *his* succession plan, ie as a way to get his preferred successor into the leader's spot without first winning a membership vote. But they likely have similar problems getting LD/ex-Con support as Corbyn himself.
The same thought occurred to me.
I agree that his anointed successor is the only person Corby will step aside for.
I'm no fan, but you can kind of see Corby's point here. He is LOTO, for better or worse, and if the PM goes......
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.
His intentions, in view of how his office have been briefing the media, are relevant to the nobile officium case. But why didn't he go to Edinburgh and give evidence to the court that the case is actually in front of, the Court of Sessions? It's expected to give its judgment later today (Monday). The case isn't even at the SC, and it won't be unless the losing side appeals.
Indications are that he may choose a third route which isn't a crashout or a death in a ditch, namely to ask for an extension and perhaps even obtain one if he can manage to secure Opposition support for a referendum or general election - while bleating all the time that it's Parliament, the Opposition, the European Council, maybe Emmanuel Macron in particular, or the Supreme Court that made him do it. What a terrible leader he is.
The gutter press is selling the idea of some kind of a fight between Britain and EU27. But who has ever heard of walking out of a club and expecting the right to pick which benefits of membership you want to continue to enjoy? If he had any honour he'd resign. Isn't that what his ugly metaphor of dying in a ditch meant?
If the Good Friday Agreement means Britain can only "really" leave the EU (its four-freedoms SM and its visible and invisible trade CU) if the Republic of Ireland does too, then given that RoI won't the remaining options are Renege on the GFA, Revoke, or BINO. A proper leader would choose one of those.
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 'special relationship' is a myth, propagated mainly by UK politicans for PR purposes. The sad case you quote is a striking example of the brutal reality.
Here's another. Nobody dies, but it couldn't be a clearer example of US contempt for our laws and sovereignity.
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 'special relationship' is a myth, propagated mainly by UK politicans for PR purposes. The sad case you quote is a striking example of the brutal reality.
Here's another. Nobody dies, but it couldn't be a clearer example of US contempt for our laws and sovereignity.
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 'special relationship' is a myth, propagated mainly by UK politicans for PR purposes. The sad case you quote is a striking example of the brutal reality.
Here's another. Nobody dies, but it couldn't be a clearer example of US contempt for our laws and sovereignity.
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 'special relationship' is a myth, propagated mainly by UK politicans for PR purposes. The sad case you quote is a striking example of the brutal reality.
Here's another. Nobody dies, but it couldn't be a clearer example of US contempt for our laws and sovereignity.
The only way I see Corbyn letting another Labour MP through is if it's *his* succession plan, ie as a way to get his preferred successor into the leader's spot without first winning a membership vote. But they likely have similar problems getting LD/ex-Con support as Corbyn himself.
The same thought occurred to me.
I agree that his anointed successor is the only person Corby will step aside for.
I'm no fan, but you can kind of see Corby's point here. He is LOTO, for better or worse, and if the PM goes......
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 'special relationship' is a myth, propagated mainly by UK politicans for PR purposes. The sad case you quote is a striking example of the brutal reality.
Here's another. Nobody dies, but it couldn't be a clearer example of US contempt for our laws and sovereignity.
The only way I see Corbyn letting another Labour MP through is if it's *his* succession plan, ie as a way to get his preferred successor into the leader's spot without first winning a membership vote. But they likely have similar problems getting LD/ex-Con support as Corbyn himself.
The same thought occurred to me.
I agree that his anointed successor is the only person Corby will step aside for.
I'm no fan, but you can kind of see Corby's point here. He is LOTO, for better or worse, and if the PM goes......
The only way I see Corbyn letting another Labour MP through is if it's *his* succession plan, ie as a way to get his preferred successor into the leader's spot without first winning a membership vote. But they likely have similar problems getting LD/ex-Con support as Corbyn himself.
The same thought occurred to me.
I agree that his anointed successor is the only person Corby will step aside for.
I'm no fan, but you can kind of see Corby's point here. He is LOTO, for better or worse, and if the PM goes......
Why's everyone calling Corbyn Corby?
I call him lots of things, Andy, mostly uncomplimentary. Demotic usage seemed appropriate enough on this occasion though.
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 'special relationship' is a myth, propagated mainly by UK politicans for PR purposes. The sad case you quote is a striking example of the brutal reality.
Here's another. Nobody dies, but it couldn't be a clearer example of US contempt for our laws and sovereignity.
Not sure if anything has changed in the meantime but this guy killed someone drink driving and the USA had to ask for immunity to be revoked. Legally I think they have complete immunity until their nation withdraws it.
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 'special relationship' is a myth, propagated mainly by UK politicans for PR purposes. The sad case you quote is a striking example of the brutal reality.
Here's another. Nobody dies, but it couldn't be a clearer example of US contempt for our laws and sovereignity.
In what way does the Vienna Convention help in either case?
How is it contempt for our laws when our laws explicitly allow them to have immunity from prosecution?
They're not exempt from charges, Rob.
I thought that was the whole point of diplomatic immunity.
You've forced me to quote:
Article34
A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues and taxes,personal or real,national,regional or municipal,except:........
(e) Charges levied for specific services rendered;
Of course the individuals cannot be prosecuted as long as they are acting on Diplomatic business (which probably only applies some of the time, but no matter), but that doesn't actually exempt them. The charge is due, but they are using Diplomatic Immunity in order not to pay, which is outwith the intentions of the Conventions. They are also in disregard of the principle of the Comity of Nations, which I guess is why most countries pay up even if technically it would be very difficult to force an Embassy to meet its financial obligations.
On reflection, the behaviour is even more reprehensible when you consider that in refusing to pay, or telling its staff to pay, the Embassy is actually encouraging the breaking of the law in the host country. The Vienna Convention was designed to improve relations between countries, not worsen them, so the spirit is being contravened even if the law isn't.
But I'm still pretty sure the law is being broken, as indicated by the way most countries simply pay up.
Not sure if anything has changed in the meantime but this guy killed someone drink driving and the USA had to ask for immunity to be revoked. Legally I think they have complete immunity until their nation withdraws it.
I think he would not be immune if not on diplomatic business, but certainly once on Embassy premises he would be untouchable. Georgia obviously did the responsible thing though and withdrew immunity, in the spirit of the Convention, so there could be no argument.
Seems that as far as the US is concerned, what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.
Doesn't augur well for forthcoming trade deals, does it?
Comments
What the politicians did understand and appreciate very much was the cheap cash that allowed voters to buy houses they really couldn’t afford (happy voters!) and the bonanza of tax revenue generated from banking profits and a runaway housing boom.
Had Lloyds not been promised state aid to take over HBOS I doubt they would have done so.
I agree RBS and Northern Rock could have been let go
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/1180970156295688198
The government and regulators had a very good opportunity indeed to stop the disaster a full 18 months before the bailout but they were too stupid to take it, despite being warned on numerous occasions.
The reason RBS had to be bailed out was because so many payments for businesses and individuals went through it that had it closed - and it was hours from doing so - it was highly likely that the entire British financial system would have collapsed, including every other bank and building society, no matter how profitable. Unfashionable as it may be to say this it was the voters’ current accounts and savings which were being bailed out.
And just for the record Goodwin did not get a payoff. He was allowed to keep his humungous pension, largely a decision of Lord Myners, a City Minister at the time and involved in the rescue and probably because given what the government was dealing with at the time the pension was utterly insignificant, in monetary terms, though not from a PR perspective.
Never again should banks - let alone one bank - be allowed to get so over-dominant.
Arguably, he was the biggest loser from 2015. Cameron promised something he didn't want to give, and didn't plan for anything other than a 'Remain' outcome.
If Cameron had just been honest, refused to give the referendum, likely he would've ended up in a hung Parliament. And we'd have had four years of 'chaos' with Ed Miliband instead. Only right he should get a go.
One day .....
But you only know about something going wrong when it actually goes wrong. We can only minimise unplanned risk. We can never completely avoid it.
And by unplanned risk I mean risk that is not factored in the particular business model . All Banking and insurance requires managed risk.
I remember in the business pages seeing RBS assimilate many companies and grow exponentially in just a few years. I even worked for one of the insurance companies within it! This is why regulation is required to stop companies getting out of hand! Too liberal governance is as bad as over regulation. It is an evolving process that requires foresight as well as oversight.
It is like asking him to sit on an electric chair and turn the current on.
Corby is not going to permit the person he replaced to walk into No 10. No way.
My opinion is Corby is not going to let anyone but himself into No 10.
Does it not bother you that that meme, which you seem to be comfortable with, has been responsible for some of the darkest episodes in human history?
The report is very well worth reading. It has been invaluable to me in my work.
See here - https://www.parliament.uk/documents/banking-commission/banking-final-report-volume-i.pdf.
I don’t wonder. There are few people more cynical than me.
It is incredibly dangerous for Corby (and for Momentum's grip on the Labour Party) to let some else from Labour into No 10.
It won't happen.
The only way I see Corbyn letting another Labour MP through is if it's *his* succession plan, ie as a way to get his preferred successor into the leader's spot without first winning a membership vote. But they likely have similar problems getting LD/ex-Con support as Corbyn himself.
Once you eliminate Corbyn (marxist cooties), Lab (internal threat), LD (competing with Lab for votes, worse than the Tories etc), Nats and Greens (similar) and ex-Cons (YUK, TORIES) the only remaining possibility is Sylvia Hermon, but I doubt Corbyn will go for that unless things get really bad.
I agree that his anointed successor is the only person Corby will step aside for.
Bungling Boris must be in trouble this week?
So all in all, no chance I suppose.
Indications are that he may choose a third route which isn't a crashout or a death in a ditch, namely to ask for an extension and perhaps even obtain one if he can manage to secure Opposition support for a referendum or general election - while bleating all the time that it's Parliament, the Opposition, the European Council, maybe Emmanuel Macron in particular, or the Supreme Court that made him do it. What a terrible leader he is.
The gutter press is selling the idea of some kind of a fight between Britain and EU27. But who has ever heard of walking out of a club and expecting the right to pick which benefits of membership you want to continue to enjoy? If he had any honour he'd resign. Isn't that what his ugly metaphor of dying in a ditch meant?
If the Good Friday Agreement means Britain can only "really" leave the EU (its four-freedoms SM and its visible and invisible trade CU) if the Republic of Ireland does too, then given that RoI won't the remaining options are Renege on the GFA, Revoke, or BINO. A proper leader would choose one of those.
Here's another. Nobody dies, but it couldn't be a clearer example of US contempt for our laws and sovereignity.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/us-government-owes-over-12m-in-unpaid-congestion-charge-a4158936.html
Not sure if anything has changed in the meantime but this guy killed someone drink driving and the USA had to ask for immunity to be revoked. Legally I think they have complete immunity until their nation withdraws it.
Article34
A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues and taxes,personal or real,national,regional or municipal,except:........
(e) Charges levied for specific services rendered;
Of course the individuals cannot be prosecuted as long as they are acting on Diplomatic business (which probably only applies some of the time, but no matter), but that doesn't actually exempt them. The charge is due, but they are using Diplomatic Immunity in order not to pay, which is outwith the intentions of the Conventions. They are also in disregard of the principle of the Comity of Nations, which I guess is why most countries pay up even if technically it would be very difficult to force an Embassy to meet its financial obligations.
On reflection, the behaviour is even more reprehensible when you consider that in refusing to pay, or telling its staff to pay, the Embassy is actually encouraging the breaking of the law in the host country. The Vienna Convention was designed to improve relations between countries, not worsen them, so the spirit is being contravened even if the law isn't.
But I'm still pretty sure the law is being broken, as indicated by the way most countries simply pay up.
Seems that as far as the US is concerned, what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.
Doesn't augur well for forthcoming trade deals, does it?