There is a difference between striking attitudes and achieving real worthwhile change. Does Milliband understand that? All he's done so far is the former. Any fool can do that.
He's the leader of the opposition, he is doing what leaders of the opposition do. It may not be impressing you but I doubt you're the target market.
It is a highly irresponsible and ignorant proposal which will be dressed up under a false cloak of populist consumerism. Miliband is a truly dangerous politician.
Hugh: "I think Labour, through the harsh lesson of being kicked out of power, have learned a lot about the banks and the dangers of pandering to their kind."
I wish. And where's the evidence? They're still going on about taxing bankers' bonuses, seemingly oblivious to the vast reduction in bankers working in the City and the steps taken by the EU to reduce their size and when they're paid out, if ever.
Labour still believe that the City can finance their spending which is why they will, if given the chance, allow the City to do precisely the sort of stupid behaviour which caused such problems in the first place and to which Labour turned a Nelsonian blind eye for the whole of its time in office.
If they were to admit that this is not the way they should go they would have to admit what will likely happen, namely, that everyone else - including the squeezed middle (those Milliband was going on about today on £25K or less) - will have to pay a lot more tax if Labour's promises are going to be met.
Bashing the bankers is easy for Labour to say but in reality they want to tax them so they won't do anything real to stop those tax revenues coming in, no matter how unhinged from reality or sense or risky to the rest of us they are.
@Huge - Glad to see that you don't make even a token effort to disguise your understanding that Miliband is a cynical opportunist prepared to wreck important industries in order to get a cheap headline.
His approach, though reprehensible, might be rational, were it not for the fact that there is a possibility that he might actually be in government when the price has to be paid.
I understand the Labour leader is preparing to unveil proposals designed to increase competition between banks by forcing the so-called "big five" - HSBC, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander and Lloyds - to sell more of their branches and promote the growth of new banks capable of challenging them.
Ed Miliband will make his plan public in a major speech on Friday which will argue that what the party calls a "living standards crisis" can only be addressed by making long term structural changes to the British economy.
Labour see this as a follow up to their proposal for an energy price freeze.
a viable and honest and trustworthy financial sector.
LOL!!!
Why do you think that funny? Isn't that what we should be aiming for?
As for me not being the target market, you may well be right. All I can say is that if you don't even aim to get votes from the sorts of people who have probably done more to put bankers in prison or out of the industry than the whole of the current Parliamentary Labour party put together then so be it.
Deliberately pissing off or ignoring people who are or could be well disposed of to you is usually what Cameron is accused of. Seems a strange policy for "One Nation" / Responsible Capitalism Labour to copy.
Blimey, the telegraph have made a major, major boo boo, M'Learned friends will no doubt be on the case.
*This evening's briefing email wrongly referred to the peer facing allegations of wrongdoing against Lib Dems as Lord Howe. This was an error. The email should have referred to Lord Rennard. Apologies for the mistake.
Tbh Miliband can go after the banks - they all came crawling to the treasury when the shit hit the fan and obviously the cash was doled out to 'save the financial system'. Its been argued on here that it was neccesary and yes it probably was and HMRC might make some cash out the deal. But for better or worse the banks came CRAWLING to the state.
Certainly Miliband is not following the New Labour strategy of getting powerful influence groups like the city and press onside for the election. He does seem to prefer the Hollande strategy. To be fair it did get Hollande elected, though seems to have got the Socialist implementing cuts bigger than Thatcher.
Tbh Miliband can go after the banks - they all came crawling to the treasury when the shit hit the fan and obviously the cash was doled out to 'save the financial system'. Its been argued on here that it was neccesary and yes it probably was and HMRC might make some cash out the deal. But for better or worse the banks came CRAWLING to the state.
Not his worst policy tbh.
Who was running the country when the banks came crawling? Do they think we are stupid?
a viable and honest and trustworthy financial sector.
LOL!!!
Why do you think that funny? Isn't that what we should be aiming for?
As for me not being the target market, you may well be right. All I can say is that if you don't even aim to get votes from the sorts of people who have probably done more to put bankers in prison or out of the industry than the whole of the current Parliamentary Labour party put together then so be it.
Deliberately pissing off or ignoring people who are or could be well disposed of to you is usually what Cameron is accused of. Seems a strange policy for "One Nation" / Responsible Capitalism Labour to copy.
Only place I've heard the bankers have been banged up was Iceland.
Tbh Miliband can go after the banks - they all came crawling to the treasury when the shit hit the fan and obviously the cash was doled out to 'save the financial system'. Its been argued on here that it was neccesary and yes it probably was and HMRC might make some cash out the deal. But for better or worse the banks came CRAWLING to the state.
Not his worst policy tbh.
Who was running the country when the banks came crawling? Do they think we are stupid?
The banks didn't just wreck our economy and cause our deficit and debt problems. They did it to the entire world.
It might be an important industry, but it's one that need very serious reform, and the Tories sure as hell aren't going to do it, for obvious reasons.
Quite apart from the fact that it was Labour who wrecked the UK's financial regulation system and who completely ignored Peter Lilley's deadly-accurate warnings about exactly why the tripartite system would be such a disaster - a speech which should be engraved on the hearts of every Labour supporter - and the fact that Osborne has been carrying out major reforms to get regulation back towards sanity, what on earth has attacking RETAIL banks got to do with anything related to the financial crisis?
Talk about trying to run after a bandwagon driven by George Osborne that has already trundled past and left you standing in its dust Mr Miliband. If I was Osborne, I would simple ask the LotO why the hell he didn't speak up sooner or support his work in rebalancing the UK economy or the restructuring of our banking system until now.
I understand the Labour leader is preparing to unveil proposals designed to increase competition between banks by forcing the so-called "big five" - HSBC, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander and Lloyds - to sell more of their branches and promote the growth of new banks capable of challenging them.
Ed Miliband will make his plan public in a major speech on Friday which will argue that what the party calls a "living standards crisis" can only be addressed by making long term structural changes to the British economy.
Labour see this as a follow up to their proposal for an energy price freeze.
I understand the Labour leader is preparing to unveil proposals designed to increase competition between banks by forcing the so-called "big five" - HSBC, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander and Lloyds - to sell more of their branches and promote the growth of new banks capable of challenging them.
Ed Miliband will make his plan public in a major speech on Friday which will argue that what the party calls a "living standards crisis" can only be addressed by making long term structural changes to the British economy.
Labour see this as a follow up to their proposal for an energy price freeze.
Ah yes: a new policy from Labour which is exactly what the EU has been telling the government to do since 2008 and which has resulted in the following:-
RBS tried to sell some of its branches to Santander, which pulled out. Lloyds tried to sell to the Co-op and we all know what happened there. HSBC will likely move its head office out of the UK and Barclays is already trimming its business. Smaller banks still have to meet the new heavier capital requirements imposed in the wake of the financial crisis and will, because of the cost of capital, probably be less competitive than bigger banks and less profitable. See, for instance, one of the recent new entrants: Metro Bank - still unprofitable and has recently imposed charges on its previously free-to-use-abroad credit card. Look at the interest rates offered by Virgin Money - utterly unattractive by comparison with others.
Labour are making the rookie's error of confusing size with competitiveness.
a viable and honest and trustworthy financial sector.
LOL!!!
Why do you think that funny? Isn't that what we should be aiming for?
As for me not being the target market, you may well be right. All I can say is that if you don't even aim to get votes from the sorts of people who have probably done more to put bankers in prison or out of the industry than the whole of the current Parliamentary Labour party put together then so be it.
Deliberately pissing off or ignoring people who are or could be well disposed of to you is usually what Cameron is accused of. Seems a strange policy for "One Nation" / Responsible Capitalism Labour to copy.
Only place I've heard the bankers have been banged up was Iceland.
I suggest you review the Enforcement section of the FCA website.
The banks didn't just wreck our economy and cause our deficit and debt problems. They did it to the entire world.
It might be an important industry, but it's one that need very serious reform, and the Tories sure as hell aren't going to do it, for obvious reasons.
Quite apart from the fact that it was Labour who wrecked the UK's financial regulation system and who completely ignored Peter Lilley's deadly-accurate warnings about exactly why the tripartite system would be such a disaster - a speech which should be engraved on the hearts of every Labour supporter - and the fact that Osborne has been carrying out major reforms to get regulation back towards sanity, what on earth has attacking RETAIL banks got to do with anything related to the financial crisis?
The Tories are bankrolled by the people who wrecked our economy and caused our deficit / debt problems, so Cameron and Osborne have done nothing to solve our fundamental economic problems.
Miliband is signalling that Labour has learned the lessons of the global bank crisis. Good on him.
Have you forgotten his Co op bank speech in July 2012 ?
The Tories are bankrolled by the people who wrecked our economy and caused our deficit / debt problems.
I'm not sure whether to admire your cynical chutzpah or despair at the possibility - however remote it might seem - that any sentient being actually believes any part of such utter nonsense.
But, keep amusing us: who exactly are these people who bankroll the Tories and who wrecked the economy? Come on, list them. It shouldn't be hard: the electoral commission has a list of donors.
The banks didn't just wreck our economy and cause our deficit and debt problems. They did it to the entire world.
It might be an important industry, but it's one that need very serious reform, and the Tories sure as hell aren't going to do it, for obvious reasons.
Quite apart from the fact that it was Labour who wrecked the UK's financial regulation system and who completely ignored Peter Lilley's deadly-accurate warnings about exactly why the tripartite system would be such a disaster - a speech which should be engraved on the hearts of every Labour supporter - and the fact that Osborne has been carrying out major reforms to get regulation back towards sanity, what on earth has attacking RETAIL banks got to do with anything related to the financial crisis?
The Tories are bankrolled by the people who wrecked our economy and caused our deficit / debt problems, so Cameron and Osborne have done nothing to solve our fundamental economic problems.
Miliband is signalling that Labour has learned the lessons of the global bank crisis. Good on him.
I struggle to believe that after the events of the last six years there are still people out there as dim as you.
I understand the Labour leader is preparing to unveil proposals designed to increase competition between banks by forcing the so-called "big five" - HSBC, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander and Lloyds - to sell more of their branches and promote the growth of new banks capable of challenging them.
Ed Miliband will make his plan public in a major speech on Friday which will argue that what the party calls a "living standards crisis" can only be addressed by making long term structural changes to the British economy.
Labour see this as a follow up to their proposal for an energy price freeze.
Does Miliband realise that the UK retail banking sector is already under threat of divestment without him compounding the problem?
The financial crisis has forced large banks in all countries to reduce their balance sheets, retrench to core businesses and markets and divest themselves of foreign subsidiaries.
Just as the Royal Bank of Scotland Group has announced its intention to sell the Citizens Financial Group, its US banking operation, so it can concentrate on its core domestic market of the UK, so too have foreign banks announced their intention to sell UK subsidiaries. National Australia Bank is known to be wanting to sell Yorkshire Bank and Clydesdale Bank.
It is possible that if Banco de Santander encounters further problems in its home market, it will put Santander Bank up for sale. Even the HSBC group has announced it is considering spinning off its UK retail bank in order to unfetter the group from the capitalisation restrictions imposed by having too large an exposure to UK retail banking.
So with the threat of existing foreign investors in the UK banking sector withdrawing from the market what does Miliband do? He intervenes to make it even more difficult for the UK to attract foreign investment.
And in the absence of foreign investment, where is the capital coming from to invest in UK banks? The Co-operative Group had to withdraw from its plans to buy 600 of Lloyds Bank branches. Northern Rock was put up for sale and the government only managed to sell 10% of its assets. Lloyds has created a 'new bank' called TSB but still owns it and there is little short term prospect of it becoming independent. The Co-operative Bank itself has had to be bailed out by US Hedge Funds who plan to float it on the LSE in the midst of the government's sale of Lloyds and RBoS shares.
Miliband's proposals will undermine the efforts made to date to stabilise the UK banking sector, deter future overseas investment and accelerate the rate at which existing investors will withdraw from the market or restructure their existing holdings to avoid the ill effects of maladministered intervention by the government.
It will be fun though to watch the reaction in the markets to Miliband's stupidity, The challenge to Carney will be how to criticise Miliband and reassure the markets without upsetting poltical sensibilities.
Perhaps the purpose of the speech is to hammer the share prices of Lloyds HBOS and RBS, so that George Osborne cannot sell them off to finance some pre election giveaways.
I understand the Labour leader is preparing to unveil proposals designed to increase competition between banks by forcing the so-called "big five" -
Labour see this as a follow up to their proposal for an energy price freeze.
Does Miliband realise that the UK retail banking sector is already under threat of divestment without him compounding the problem?
The financial crisis has forced large banks in all countries to reduce their balance sheets, retrench to core businesses and markets and divest themselves of foreign subsidiaries.
Just as the Royal Bank of Scotland Group has announced its intention to sell the Citizens Financial Group, its US banking operation, so it can concentrate on its core domestic market of the UK, so too have foreign banks announced their intention to sell UK subsidiaries. National Australia Bank is known to be wanting to sell Yorkshire Bank and Clydesdale Bank.
It is possible that if Banco de Santander encounters further problems in its home market, it will put Santander Bank up for sale. Even the HSBC group has announced it is considering spinning off its UK retail bank in order to unfetter the group from the capitalisation restrictions imposed by having too large an exposure to UK retail banking.
So with the threat of existing foreign investors in the UK banking sector withdrawing from the market what does Miliband do? He intervenes to make it even more difficult for the UK to attract foreign investment.
And in the absence of foreign investment, where is the capital coming from to invest in UK banks? The Co-operative Group had to withdraw from its plans to buy 600 of Lloyds Bank branches. Northern Rock was put up for sale and the government only managed to sell 10% of its assets. Lloyds has created a 'new bank' called TSB but still owns it and there is little short term prospect of it becoming independent. The Co-operative Bank itself has had to be bailed out by US Hedge Funds who plan to float it on the LSE in the midst of the government's sale of Lloyds and RBoS shares.
Miliband's proposals will undermine the efforts made to date to stabilise the UK banking sector, deter future overseas investment and accelerate the rate at which existing investors will withdraw from the market or restructure their existing holdings to avoid the ill effects of maladministered intervention by the government.
It will be fun though to watch the reaction in the markets to Miliband's stupidity, The challenge to Carney will be how to criticise Miliband and reassure the markets without upsetting poltical sensibilities.
Neil: if Milliband is really interested in a competitive banking sector he would pay attention to what the Competition authorities have to say on the matter. It was Labour who allowed Lloyds to take on HBOS without the competition authorities being involved which resulted in the catastrophic destruction of Lloyds. As a result of that and the measures then taken to sort out the mess created, account holders and shareholders in Lloyds have lost out.
I'm an account holder in RBS and did not want to be moved against my will to Santander and nor do I want anything like that to happen in future just because of some arbitrary government decision.
There is much to be done to create a viable financial services industry but I absolutely do not trust Labour to do it, given the heavy responsibility they bear for the banking culture which was allowed to flourish for 13 years under them and the largely useless regulatory system they put in place. Labour were too in love with bankers' bonuses as a source of revenue for them to do anything effective either to protect consumers or encourage a worthwhile financial sector.
No reason to believe they have understood any of the lessons. Or that they won't make the same or equally stupid mistakes again.
Is this a good time to point out that Ed is indeed crap? And that is why he is very good at his job as LotO. The longer he stays Leader of the Opposition the better for the health of the UK economy.
Perhaps the purpose of the speech is to hammer the share prices of Lloyds HBOS and RBS, so that George Osborne cannot sell them off to finance some pre election giveaways.
That will almost certainly be the short term effect of Miliband's announcement. Both the Eds are not so stupid that they wouldn't have realised this being the consequence. What they are doing is highly irresponsible and damaging to the country's interests.
1. 2 billion knocked off the shares of our energy companies. 2. The UK humiliated internationally over the Syrian crisis. 3. ....and now the threat to the banking sector.
Carney is really going to have to slap him down hard and fast.
Perhaps the purpose of the speech is to hammer the share prices of Lloyds HBOS and RBS, so that George Osborne cannot sell them off to finance some pre election giveaways.
That will almost certainly be the short term effect of Miliband's announcement. Both the Eds are not so stupid that they wouldn't have realised this being the consequence. What they are doing is highly irresponsible and damaging to the country's interests.
1. 2 billion knocked off the shares of our energy companies. 2. The UK humiliated internationally over the Syrian crisis. 3. ....and now the threat to the banking sector.
Carney is really going to have to slap him down hard and fast.
The UK was not humiliated over the Syrian crisis. Cameron ended up looking like a bit of a tit, but the UK: - Asked its parliament before going to war, setting a precedent for the US to do the same (to Cameron's credit) - Made itself relevant in foreign policy for the first time in decades. - Achieved its stated objectives at minimal cost and without joining another war in the middle-east, with all the unintended consequences that would have had.
Perhaps the purpose of the speech is to hammer the share prices of Lloyds HBOS and RBS, so that George Osborne cannot sell them off to finance some pre election giveaways.
That will almost certainly be the short term effect of Miliband's announcement. Both the Eds are not so stupid that they wouldn't have realised this being the consequence. What they are doing is highly irresponsible and damaging to the country's interests.
1. 2 billion knocked off the shares of our energy companies. 2. The UK humiliated internationally over the Syrian crisis. 3. ....and now the threat to the banking sector.
Carney is really going to have to slap him down hard and fast.
The UK was not humiliated over the Syrian crisis. Cameron ended up looking like a bit of a tit, but the UK: - Asked its parliament before going to war, setting a precedent for the US to do the same (to Cameron's credit) - Made itself relevant in foreign policy for the first time in decades. - Achieved its stated objectives at minimal cost and without joining another war in the middle-east, with all the unintended consequences that would have had.
Incorrect.
The objective of UK foreign policy was to maximise the pressure on Syria and its allies (in particular Russia and Iran) in order to secure a decommissioning of chemical weapons without having to intervene militarily.
If you think this statement of policy objectives is post hoc revisionism go back to the PB threads at the time and you will find that I repeatedly stated this to be the UK's objective before the parliamentary vote.
Miliband's undertaking to support the Government in a two stage voting process and then his late decision to renege on his word had the effect of weakening the united front with the US and exposing the UK parliamentary and diplomatic process to international ridicule.
Although Miliband played with fire, he was very lucky that it didn't spread.
Miliband had no effect on the eventual outcome in Syria. Obama's decision to go to Congress was driven by his desire to use the G20 St Petersburg summit as a final pressure point on the Russians, to avoid any need to take military action during the summit and, generally, to buy time to allow diplomacy to work. The UK Parliamentary fiasco may have been a minor factor but it was by no means decisive.
The only objective achieved by Miliband was to avoid splitting his own party on the issue. And that objective was achieved at the expense of the country's interest. That partisan reversal of priorities is why Miliband is so dangerous a politician and so ill-equipped for high office.
The objective of UK foreign policy was to maximise the pressure on Syria and its allies (in particular Russia and Iran) in order to secure a decommissioning of chemical weapons without having to intervene militarily.
If you think this statement of policy objectives is post hoc revisionism go back to the PB threads at the time and you will find that I repeatedly stated this to be the UK's objective before the parliamentary vote.
Miliband's undertaking to support the Government in a two stage voting process and then his late decision to renege on his word had the effect of weakening the united front with the US and exposing the UK parliamentary and diplomatic process to international ridicule.
Although Miliband played with fire, he was very lucky that it didn't spread.
Miliband had no effect on the eventual outcome in Syria. Obama's decision to go to Congress was driven by his desire to use the G20 St Petersburg summit as a final pressure point on the Russians, to avoid any need to take military action during the summit and, generally, to buy time to allow diplomacy to work. The UK Parliamentary fiasco may have been a minor factor but it was by no means decisive.
The only objective achieved by Miliband was to avoid splitting his own party on the issue. And that objective was achieved at the expense of the country's interest. That partisan reversal of priorities is why Miliband is so dangerous a politician and so ill-equipped for high office.
I think both cameron and miliband embarrassed themselves, parliaments reputation improved. Then Kerry managed diplomacy by accident..
The objective of UK foreign policy was to maximise the pressure on Syria and its allies (in particular Russia and Iran) in order to secure a decommissioning of chemical weapons without having to intervene militarily.
If you think this statement of policy objectives is post hoc revisionism go back to the PB threads at the time and you will find that I repeatedly stated this to be the UK's objective before the parliamentary vote.
Miliband's undertaking to support the Government in a two stage voting process and then his late decision to renege on his word had the effect of weakening the united front with the US and exposing the UK parliamentary and diplomatic process to international ridicule.
Although Miliband played with fire, he was very lucky that it didn't spread.
Miliband had no effect on the eventual outcome in Syria. Obama's decision to go to Congress was driven by his desire to use the G20 St Petersburg summit as a final pressure point on the Russians, to avoid any need to take military action during the summit and, generally, to buy time to allow diplomacy to work. The UK Parliamentary fiasco may have been a minor factor but it was by no means decisive.
The only objective achieved by Miliband was to avoid splitting his own party on the issue. And that objective was achieved at the expense of the country's interest. That partisan reversal of priorities is why Miliband is so dangerous a politician and so ill-equipped for high office.
I think both cameron and miliband embarrassed themselves, parliaments reputation improved. Then Kerry managed diplomacy by accident..
I agree that Cameron was very lucky not to have suffered from Miliband's ambush and that he contributed to the fiasco by not being in control of his own party.
Nevertheless he was a lucky loser. Obama's, Cameron's and Hague's strategic objectives were realised and the Syria Chemical Weapons crisis was resolved without the need for military intervention.
The foundations were also laid for co-operation with Russia and Iran over a longer term with the goal of a negotiated resolution of the Syrian civil war.
This mutual trust also contributed to the success of the negotiations leading to the current agreement with Iran on nuclear non-proliferation and gradual release of UN sanctions.
So Obama and Cameron did gain.
So too did Miliband. He avoided dividing his party in the interests of his country and thereby gained for himself a few extra months in office.
The history books will be kinder to Cameron than Miliband in the circumstances. Cameron is a lucky general.
I totally support this family and hope they win their fight on the right to take an affordable family holiday when both parents work commitments allow this to happen! Someone needs to take their jobsworth cap off and fight the stupid red tape rather than these parents who are now trapped in this crazy and very expensive situation. A family holiday is simple priceless, and unfortunately with the way that the holiday companies operate, they now see these very restricted rules with school fines imposed holiday guidelines as a cash cow.
Only one major problem, far more Mums as well as Dads are now working so getting time off in school holidays gets far harder as a result. Add in the stupidity of different councils in Scotland (not sure about elsewhere) getting to set their own individual holiday timetables and that gives an added burden to already cash strapped parents struggling to fit in holidays around school holidays. As a result, the October holidays here in Scotland have become the new summer holidays as a way to beat high season prices and to try to get the whole family together to get away. I have a very tight knit extended family who likes to go on holiday together, and the constantly different school holiday timetables between councils up here makes planning these holidays that much harder on top of all the working adults trying to get the same holiday provision booked!
Now if they were all high earners with kids at private schools who have longer holidays they might have stood a chance of getting their holiday to fit the school timetable as well as getting a better deal on their holiday!
Miliband had no effect on the eventual outcome in Syria. Obama's decision to go to Congress was driven by his desire to use the G20 St Petersburg summit as a final pressure point on the Russians, to avoid any need to take military action during the summit and, generally, to buy time to allow diplomacy to work. The UK Parliamentary fiasco may have been a minor factor but it was by no means decisive.
Obama wouldn't have gone to Congress without the British voting the resolution down. This was very clear if you were following US politics at the time.
The best line to take if you want to avoid giving Britain credit would be that Obama was bluffing and he and Putin would have cut a deal anyway.
Miliband had no effect on the eventual outcome in Syria. Obama's decision to go to Congress was driven by his desire to use the G20 St Petersburg summit as a final pressure point on the Russians, to avoid any need to take military action during the summit and, generally, to buy time to allow diplomacy to work. The UK Parliamentary fiasco may have been a minor factor but it was by no means decisive.
Obama wouldn't have gone to Congress without the British voting the resolution down. This was very clear if you were following US politics at the time.
The best line to take if you want to avoid giving Britain credit would be that Obama was bluffing and he and Putin would have cut a deal anyway.
On your suggestion that Putin and Obama would have cut a deal anyway, I assume you mean that whatever happened in the UK was irrelevant and that the deal depended solely on US-Russia negotiations.
I have some sympathy with this line as it undoubtedly is the underlying realpolitik. But the relationship between Russia and the US has always benefitted from intermediation by European partners.
Russia and America have never really understood each other and they have always looked for support and confirmation from their allies before committing to any agreement. Any of Germany, France and the UK can play the role of intermediary. The US generally look to the UK for comfort and Russia to France and Germany depending on the issue.
This particularly applies today when Obama and Putin just do not get on at all. The traditional difficulties between the countries have become caricatured in the personal relations between their Presidents.
So my guess is that the eventual agreement was more multi-lateral than a simple Putin-Obama deal.
As always with the Russians you have to negotiate from a position of strength. Putin would have to have believed that Obama was serious in his intention to carry out a military strike before agreeing to help resolve the problem with Assad. The delay and congress discussion was as much to get McCain to advocate a full intervention and get Putin to see escalation as a risk than it was a genuine attempt to serve the cause of democracy.
On the above basis I still don't agree with your first paragraph.
@AveryLP If the US were trying to delay why did they nudge the UK to get on with it, and why was the administration opposing asking Congress until after the pressure mounted after the UK vote?
They had a plan, Miliband derailed it, the derailing worked out well. Arguably it happened more by luck than judgement, but it's what happened.
Somewhere in the White House there will now be a wee note mentioning the fact that Ed Miliband is not trustworthy, and that his word is no longer his bond in International Relations. The fact that David Cameron can no longer rely on or trust Ed Miliband and his word as LotO has been glossed over, but its an extremely damaging fact that undermines his abilities as a Leader of a party never mind a country.
@AveryLP If the US were trying to delay why did they nudge the UK to get on with it, and why was the administration opposing asking Congress until after the pressure mounted after the UK vote?
They had a plan, Miliband derailed it, the derailing worked out well. Arguably it happened more by luck than judgement, but it's what happened.
Maybe the calculation of who is most "influential" on Twitter has got something to do with how many people follow the person's followers, not just how many people follow the person.
For example, I am followed by 412 people, but those 412 people are followed by 4,300,000 people. One of my followers has 2,600,000 followers, i.e. more than all the other 411 put together.
The wretched counter-revolutionary tyranny of Old Grumpy Head has continued and degenerated further: not only is The Thailand One still in enforced exile (free SeanT!) but, with breathtaking arrogance, the reactionary PB tyranny refused to have a thread celebrating the 55th anniversary of the Worker-Peasant Red Guards of the DPRK.
Comments
Last price matched 11.0 !
I wish. And where's the evidence? They're still going on about taxing bankers' bonuses, seemingly oblivious to the vast reduction in bankers working in the City and the steps taken by the EU to reduce their size and when they're paid out, if ever.
Labour still believe that the City can finance their spending which is why they will, if given the chance, allow the City to do precisely the sort of stupid behaviour which caused such problems in the first place and to which Labour turned a Nelsonian blind eye for the whole of its time in office.
If they were to admit that this is not the way they should go they would have to admit what will likely happen, namely, that everyone else - including the squeezed middle (those Milliband was going on about today on £25K or less) - will have to pay a lot more tax if Labour's promises are going to be met.
Bashing the bankers is easy for Labour to say but in reality they want to tax them so they won't do anything real to stop those tax revenues coming in, no matter how unhinged from reality or sense or risky to the rest of us they are.
His approach, though reprehensible, might be rational, were it not for the fact that there is a possibility that he might actually be in government when the price has to be paid.
Ed Miliband will make his plan public in a major speech on Friday which will argue that what the party calls a "living standards crisis" can only be addressed by making long term structural changes to the British economy.
Labour see this as a follow up to their proposal for an energy price freeze.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25737656
As for me not being the target market, you may well be right. All I can say is that if you don't even aim to get votes from the sorts of people who have probably done more to put bankers in prison or out of the industry than the whole of the current Parliamentary Labour party put together then so be it.
Deliberately pissing off or ignoring people who are or could be well disposed of to you is usually what Cameron is accused of. Seems a strange policy for "One Nation" / Responsible Capitalism Labour to copy.
*This evening's briefing email wrongly referred to the peer facing allegations of wrongdoing against Lib Dems as Lord Howe. This was an error. The email should have referred to Lord Rennard. Apologies for the mistake.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100254617/evening-briefing-unstable-tories
Not his worst policy tbh.
Is there no depth of abysmal he cannot plummet ?
RBS tried to sell some of its branches to Santander, which pulled out. Lloyds tried to sell to the Co-op and we all know what happened there. HSBC will likely move its head office out of the UK and Barclays is already trimming its business. Smaller banks still have to meet the new heavier capital requirements imposed in the wake of the financial crisis and will, because of the cost of capital, probably be less competitive than bigger banks and less profitable. See, for instance, one of the recent new entrants: Metro Bank - still unprofitable and has recently imposed charges on its previously free-to-use-abroad credit card. Look at the interest rates offered by Virgin Money - utterly unattractive by comparison with others.
Labour are making the rookie's error of confusing size with competitiveness.
Which perhaps explains why economic growth was better in the seventies than the present era.
But, keep amusing us: who exactly are these people who bankroll the Tories and who wrecked the economy? Come on, list them. It shouldn't be hard: the electoral commission has a list of donors.
I understand the Labour leader is preparing to unveil proposals designed to increase competition between banks by forcing the so-called "big five" - HSBC, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander and Lloyds - to sell more of their branches and promote the growth of new banks capable of challenging them.
Ed Miliband will make his plan public in a major speech on Friday which will argue that what the party calls a "living standards crisis" can only be addressed by making long term structural changes to the British economy.
Labour see this as a follow up to their proposal for an energy price freeze.
Does Miliband realise that the UK retail banking sector is already under threat of divestment without him compounding the problem?
The financial crisis has forced large banks in all countries to reduce their balance sheets, retrench to core businesses and markets and divest themselves of foreign subsidiaries.
Just as the Royal Bank of Scotland Group has announced its intention to sell the Citizens Financial Group, its US banking operation, so it can concentrate on its core domestic market of the UK, so too have foreign banks announced their intention to sell UK subsidiaries. National Australia Bank is known to be wanting to sell Yorkshire Bank and Clydesdale Bank.
It is possible that if Banco de Santander encounters further problems in its home market, it will put Santander Bank up for sale. Even the HSBC group has announced it is considering spinning off its UK retail bank in order to unfetter the group from the capitalisation restrictions imposed by having too large an exposure to UK retail banking.
So with the threat of existing foreign investors in the UK banking sector withdrawing from the market what does Miliband do? He intervenes to make it even more difficult for the UK to attract foreign investment.
And in the absence of foreign investment, where is the capital coming from to invest in UK banks? The Co-operative Group had to withdraw from its plans to buy 600 of Lloyds Bank branches. Northern Rock was put up for sale and the government only managed to sell 10% of its assets. Lloyds has created a 'new bank' called TSB but still owns it and there is little short term prospect of it becoming independent. The Co-operative Bank itself has had to be bailed out by US Hedge Funds who plan to float it on the LSE in the midst of the government's sale of Lloyds and RBoS shares.
Miliband's proposals will undermine the efforts made to date to stabilise the UK banking sector, deter future overseas investment and accelerate the rate at which existing investors will withdraw from the market or restructure their existing holdings to avoid the ill effects of maladministered intervention by the government.
It will be fun though to watch the reaction in the markets to Miliband's stupidity, The challenge to Carney will be how to criticise Miliband and reassure the markets without upsetting poltical sensibilities.
Thanks for the travel advice.
Perhaps the purpose of the speech is to hammer the share prices of Lloyds HBOS and RBS, so that George Osborne cannot sell them off to finance some pre election giveaways.
Perhaps the purpose of the speech is to hammer the share prices of Lloyds HBOS and RBS, so that George Osborne cannot sell them off to finance some pre election giveaways.
That will almost certainly be the short term effect of Miliband's announcement. Both the Eds are not so stupid that they wouldn't have realised this being the consequence. What they are doing is highly irresponsible and damaging to the country's interests.
1. 2 billion knocked off the shares of our energy companies.
2. The UK humiliated internationally over the Syrian crisis.
3. ....and now the threat to the banking sector.
Carney is really going to have to slap him down hard and fast.
- Asked its parliament before going to war, setting a precedent for the US to do the same (to Cameron's credit)
- Made itself relevant in foreign policy for the first time in decades.
- Achieved its stated objectives at minimal cost and without joining another war in the middle-east, with all the unintended consequences that would have had.
The objective of UK foreign policy was to maximise the pressure on Syria and its allies (in particular Russia and Iran) in order to secure a decommissioning of chemical weapons without having to intervene militarily.
If you think this statement of policy objectives is post hoc revisionism go back to the PB threads at the time and you will find that I repeatedly stated this to be the UK's objective before the parliamentary vote.
Miliband's undertaking to support the Government in a two stage voting process and then his late decision to renege on his word had the effect of weakening the united front with the US and exposing the UK parliamentary and diplomatic process to international ridicule.
Although Miliband played with fire, he was very lucky that it didn't spread.
Miliband had no effect on the eventual outcome in Syria. Obama's decision to go to Congress was driven by his desire to use the G20 St Petersburg summit as a final pressure point on the Russians, to avoid any need to take military action during the summit and, generally, to buy time to allow diplomacy to work. The UK Parliamentary fiasco may have been a minor factor but it was by no means decisive.
The only objective achieved by Miliband was to avoid splitting his own party on the issue. And that objective was achieved at the expense of the country's interest. That partisan reversal of priorities is why Miliband is so dangerous a politician and so ill-equipped for high office.
'It might be an important industry, but it's one that need very serious reform'
At least Ed's got his mate Paul Flowers to point him in the right direction.
Nevertheless he was a lucky loser. Obama's, Cameron's and Hague's strategic objectives were realised and the Syria Chemical Weapons crisis was resolved without the need for military intervention.
The foundations were also laid for co-operation with Russia and Iran over a longer term with the goal of a negotiated resolution of the Syrian civil war.
This mutual trust also contributed to the success of the negotiations leading to the current agreement with Iran on nuclear non-proliferation and gradual release of UN sanctions.
So Obama and Cameron did gain.
So too did Miliband. He avoided dividing his party in the interests of his country and thereby gained for himself a few extra months in office.
The history books will be kinder to Cameron than Miliband in the circumstances. Cameron is a lucky general.
Only one major problem, far more Mums as well as Dads are now working so getting time off in school holidays gets far harder as a result. Add in the stupidity of different councils in Scotland (not sure about elsewhere) getting to set their own individual holiday timetables and that gives an added burden to already cash strapped parents struggling to fit in holidays around school holidays. As a result, the October holidays here in Scotland have become the new summer holidays as a way to beat high season prices and to try to get the whole family together to get away. I have a very tight knit extended family who likes to go on holiday together, and the constantly different school holiday timetables between councils up here makes planning these holidays that much harder on top of all the working adults trying to get the same holiday provision booked!
Now if they were all high earners with kids at private schools who have longer holidays they might have stood a chance of getting their holiday to fit the school timetable as well as getting a better deal on their holiday!
Daily Mail - Couple who took their children out of school for a week's holiday in Rhodes could face jail for refusing to pay fines
The best line to take if you want to avoid giving Britain credit would be that Obama was bluffing and he and Putin would have cut a deal anyway.
The best line to take if you want to avoid giving Britain credit would be that Obama was bluffing and he and Putin would have cut a deal anyway.
On your suggestion that Putin and Obama would have cut a deal anyway, I assume you mean that whatever happened in the UK was irrelevant and that the deal depended solely on US-Russia negotiations.
I have some sympathy with this line as it undoubtedly is the underlying realpolitik. But the relationship between Russia and the US has always benefitted from intermediation by European partners.
Russia and America have never really understood each other and they have always looked for support and confirmation from their allies before committing to any agreement. Any of Germany, France and the UK can play the role of intermediary. The US generally look to the UK for comfort and Russia to France and Germany depending on the issue.
This particularly applies today when Obama and Putin just do not get on at all. The traditional difficulties between the countries have become caricatured in the personal relations between their Presidents.
So my guess is that the eventual agreement was more multi-lateral than a simple Putin-Obama deal.
As always with the Russians you have to negotiate from a position of strength. Putin would have to have believed that Obama was serious in his intention to carry out a military strike before agreeing to help resolve the problem with Assad. The delay and congress discussion was as much to get McCain to advocate a full intervention and get Putin to see escalation as a risk than it was a genuine attempt to serve the cause of democracy.
On the above basis I still don't agree with your first paragraph.
They had a plan, Miliband derailed it, the derailing worked out well. Arguably it happened more by luck than judgement, but it's what happened.
Maybe the calculation of who is most "influential" on Twitter has got something to do with how many people follow the person's followers, not just how many people follow the person.
For example, I am followed by 412 people, but those 412 people are followed by 4,300,000 people. One of my followers has 2,600,000 followers, i.e. more than all the other 411 put together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker-Peasant_Red_Guards