It depends on who replaces him. But Milne is a ridiculous waste of space, not only in his current job but also as a journalist generally. He delivers zero value.
This quote from the above text sums up a lot of the causes of the problems of the left:
'He appeared to have all the power of Alastair Campbell at his peak but without the skills '
Given the corrosive effect of Mr Campbell and his alleged bullying ways, I can't think of a bigger insult to use than those words above to describe anyone.
The sack is the best thing for Milne, he's done nothing but get negative press for Corbyn since he's been there. Even the Grauniad are moving away from supporting Labour, let him go back there and pick up his six figure salary for writing about how we should keep the poor, poor.
Oh, and antics like changing someone's speech without telling him, by editing the autocue as he's about to go on stage - not big and not clever, especially when your boss is going on about party unity.
The sack is the best thing for Milne, he's done nothing but get negative press for Corbyn since he's been there. Even the Grauniad are moving away from supporting Labour, let him go back there and pick up his six figure salary for writing about how we should keep the poor, poor.
And just what political system do you know of that would abolish poverty?
The sack is the best thing for Milne, he's done nothing but get negative press for Corbyn since he's been there. Even the Grauniad are moving away from supporting Labour, let him go back there and pick up his six figure salary for writing about how we should keep the poor, poor.
And just what political system do you know of that would abolish poverty?
Getting the poor educated well, in jobs and paying less tax when they do is a good starting point, one where bloody good progress has been made since 2010. It's the politics of aspiration.
Oh, and silly "relative" "poverty" definitions are bollocks. Making the rich less rich doesn't make those at the bottom any better off, nor does just handing them cash as supplicants of the State.
There are a tiny number of people in the UK living in actual poverty, as the rest of the world might define it. Someone is not "in poverty" because they have last year's iPhone or because their satellite TV is only 42" instead of 55.
Seumas will be greatly missed by me, he's so incredibly crap at his job. He's always the story, looks like he'd icepick his enemies with a bloodless smile, and somehow manages to create pointless controversy.
I think Mr Mid-Life-Crisis would be fabulous. He talks in loony lefty pamphlet language and is incredibly angry. He's just placard away from a rant these days.
Of course - Dr Eoin would be ideal - he's a one man wonder at fact checking too.
Seumas will be greatly missed by me, he's so incredibly crap at his job. He's always the story, looks like he'd icepick his enemies with a bloodless smile, and somehow manages to create pointless controversy.
I think Mr Mid-Life-Crisis would be fabulous. He talks in loony lefty pamphlet language and is incredibly angry. He's just placard away from a rant these days.
Of course - Dr Eoin would be ideal - he's a one man wonder at fact checking too.
I thought Seumas Milne’s one year contract was up, er that’s it. – No sacrificial lamb, no olive branch sacking for party unity, just not very good at the job, as Mandelson predicted.
And soon to be return to the Guardian by all accounts?
Not entirely sure why Corbyn needs a sacrifice given his comfortable victory, unless one counts the innards of various PLP members. And I think one of Corbyn's few redeeming features is a lack of superstitious beliefs. That said getting rid of Seamus is a good idea in its own terms because the man is a useless pillock.
Paul Mason would be a terrible replacement. Increasingly unhinged and unconnected to reality I think even Syriza in its pomp might have hesitated to employ a cannon that was quite that loose.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
And they've already told Italy that bailing out banks is a no-no.
The only way a bank the size of Deutsche is getting bailed out is if the ECB "print" several hundred billion Euro, which is against every rule in the book. But not doing it risks a domino effect, with Commerzbank next to fall.
It could quite conceivably wreck the Euro as a currency, Deutsche is way too big to fail.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
And as the mail explains, this is principally because the Germans refused to countenance the idea - to the extent that Cyprus savers had their savings confiscated - because if they end up Bailing Out Italys £350 billion in hock banks it is goodnight Vienna, the lights will go out all over Europe.
I liked the final sentence of that article:
"Here, in Britain, we should surely be thankful that, after the Brexit vote, we are preparing to jump clear of the clattering train as it heads for a ravine"
- although landing on railway ballast at 40mph will not be unpainful.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
And they've already told Italy that bailing out banks is a no-no.
The only way a bank the size of Deutsche is getting bailed out is if the ECB "print" several hundred billion Euro, which is against every rule in the book. But not doing it risks a domino effect, with Commerzbank next to fall.
It could quite conceivably wreck the Euro as a currency, Deutsche is way too big to fail.
it's a question of when not if. Merkel's refusal to bail them out on Monday won't help the inevitable happening sooner
Trump gains net 2% from the Debate in Gravis flash poll, even though Clinton "won" the debate 48% to 44%.
"Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump."
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
And they've already told Italy that bailing out banks is a no-no.
The only way a bank the size of Deutsche is getting bailed out is if the ECB "print" several hundred billion Euro, which is against every rule in the book. But not doing it risks a domino effect, with Commerzbank next to fall.
It could quite conceivably wreck the Euro as a currency, Deutsche is way too big to fail.
it's a question of when not if. Merkel's refusal to bail them out on Monday won't help the inevitable happening sooner
Indeed. As someone noted here yesterday, Deutsche's share price is now purely a gamble on the willingness of the German govt and ECB standing behind the bank. Every comment that suggests that might not happen, pushes the bank one inch 2.54cm closer to the precipice.
Not entirely sure why Corbyn needs a sacrifice given his comfortable victory, unless one counts the innards of various PLP members. And I think one of Corbyn's few redeeming features is a lack of superstitious beliefs. That said getting rid of Seamus is a good idea in its own terms because the man is a useless pillock.
Paul Mason would be a terrible replacement. Increasingly unhinged and unconnected to reality I think even Syriza in its pomp might have hesitated to employ a cannon that was quite that loose.
Mason is building a media brand - the maverick commentator who "gets" the insurgency on the left. He would be ill-advised to take the Labour job if offered because (1) it would mean a pay cut and (2) because it would keep him off the TV and away from social media. If it were offered, though, it would inflame tensions within Labour even further and would be the clearest possible sign that Corbyn has no interest whatsoever in unity. I rather hope it happens.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
Its not just politically toxic because of Italy. Far more toxic, last time Germany did that they ended up with a wheelbarrow of cash to buy a loaf of Bread, going all Godwins and everyone losing everything including their sons and the roof over their head and half the women in Prussia raped by Soviet Troops.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
And they've already told Italy that bailing out banks is a no-no.
The only way a bank the size of Deutsche is getting bailed out is if the ECB "print" several hundred billion Euro, which is against every rule in the book. But not doing it risks a domino effect, with Commerzbank next to fall.
It could quite conceivably wreck the Euro as a currency, Deutsche is way too big to fail.
it's a question of when not if. Merkel's refusal to bail them out on Monday won't help the inevitable happening sooner
We are back in 2008 with EU banks once again exposed to market apprehension and, unlike their UK counterparts, with no obvious lender of last resort standing behind them to give confidence. The ECB will not stand behind them because that involves spending non German money or at least pledging non German credit. The Bundesbank has the power and financial resource to do so but not the legal responsibility. The rulebook (which is about to be jettisoned again) stops the German State from doing so.
And he'll still lose by a landslide at the general election.
The ramping of candidates in an election where almost no-one here is voting, is pointless. Here we're pretty much all all more interested in how to make money, than in the actual result on Nov. 8.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
Its not just politically toxic because of Italy. Far more toxic, last time Germany did that they ended up with a wheelbarrow of cash to buy a loaf of Bread, going all Godwins and everyone losing everything and half the women in Prussia raped by Soviet Troops.
I agree with tim, although it wouldn't surprise me at all if paul mason is milne's replacement - that's if he'd take the job.
Labour - and the corbynite idiots - need to lose an election before they understand how screwed they are.
You are wrong on two counts. Firstly, plenty in Labour already realise that the party is screwed, just not quite plenty enough. And secondly the Corbynites won't realise that even after losing a general election. For the far left, it's always someone else's fault.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
Its not just politically toxic because of Italy. Far more toxic, last time Germany did that they ended up with a wheelbarrow of cash to buy a loaf of Bread, going all Godwins and everyone losing everything and half the women in Prussia raped by Soviet Troops.
Really, that is nonsense. There is no inflation at all in Germany, indeed prices are falling. The State runs a surplus and has been paying down debt. Their economy is very strong and can easily handle this. Its just out of step looking to do this in 2016 rather than 2008 and the Germans have been the ones insisting on a rule book that creates artificial barriers to doing so.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
It seems as though the political decision to hurt Southern European countries as much as they could to keep them in line is about to come and bite them in the bum. I am personally looking forwards to it, years of holier than thou preaching from Berlin and Frankfurt has made me indifferent to their travails. If there is some blowback to the UK, we'll just have to deal with it, watching the German banks crumble or the German government enforce a "good enough for thee, but not me" approach and blow up the whole EMU is going to be quite delicious.
And he'll still lose by a landslide at the general election.
The ramping of candidates in an election where almost no-one here is voting, is pointless. Here we're pretty much all all more interested in how to make money, than in the actual result on Nov. 8.
Do you have shares in nuclear fallout shelter manufacturers? If so, we should be told.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
It seems as though the political decision to hurt Southern European countries as much as they could to keep them in line is about to come and bite them in the bum. I am personally looking forwards to it, years of holier than thou preaching from Berlin and Frankfurt has made me indifferent to their travails. If there is some blowback to the UK, we'll just have to deal with it, watching the German banks crumble or the German government enforce a "good enough for thee, but not me" approach and blow up the whole EMU is going to be quite delicious.
Quite. What's German for "Hoist by their own petard"?
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
It seems as though the political decision to hurt Southern European countries as much as they could to keep them in line is about to come and bite them in the bum. I am personally looking forwards to it, years of holier than thou preaching from Berlin and Frankfurt has made me indifferent to their travails. If there is some blowback to the UK, we'll just have to deal with it, watching the German banks crumble or the German government enforce a "good enough for thee, but not me" approach and blow up the whole EMU is going to be quite delicious.
I think the Germans have a rather excellent word for it which I am not going to try to spell at this time in the morning.
Not entirely sure why Corbyn needs a sacrifice given his comfortable victory, unless one counts the innards of various PLP members. And I think one of Corbyn's few redeeming features is a lack of superstitious beliefs. That said getting rid of Seamus is a good idea in its own terms because the man is a useless pillock.
Paul Mason would be a terrible replacement. Increasingly unhinged and unconnected to reality I think even Syriza in its pomp might have hesitated to employ a cannon that was quite that loose.
Mason is building a media brand - the maverick commentator who "gets" the insurgency on the left. He would be ill-advised to take the Labour job if offered because (1) it would mean a pay cut and (2) because it would keep him off the TV and away from social media. If it were offered, though, it would inflame tensions within Labour even further and would be the clearest possible sign that Corbyn has no interest whatsoever in unity. I rather hope it happens.
Doesn't Corbyn's press officer have to be someone of this ilk though? As a matter of principle Corbyn seems to refuse to countenance compromising on his views on anything for the sake of the electorate and/or the (tabloid) media. Any press officer who tries to make him see sense on that is going to quit within a few months out of frustration. Someone like Owen Jones (who might have been perfect) would be an example of this.
If the UK was able to bail out the cream of it's banking sector, one would have thought that the Germans could manage? Or is the extra support provided by the BoE the difference?
Watched the Kuenssberg interview with Corbyn this morning. I find his interviews absolutely fascinating both in the way he conducts himself (generally like he's sitting on a wasp) and for the sheer head-in-the-sand-ness of it all. The immigration segment was jaw dropping.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
It seems as though the political decision to hurt Southern European countries as much as they could to keep them in line is about to come and bite them in the bum. I am personally looking forwards to it, years of holier than thou preaching from Berlin and Frankfurt has made me indifferent to their travails. If there is some blowback to the UK, we'll just have to deal with it, watching the German banks crumble or the German government enforce a "good enough for thee, but not me" approach and blow up the whole EMU is going to be quite delicious.
I think the Germans have a rather excellent word for it which I am not going to try to spell at this time in the morning.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
It seems as though the political decision to hurt Southern European countries as much as they could to keep them in line is about to come and bite them in the bum. I am personally looking forwards to it, years of holier than thou preaching from Berlin and Frankfurt has made me indifferent to their travails. If there is some blowback to the UK, we'll just have to deal with it, watching the German banks crumble or the German government enforce a "good enough for thee, but not me" approach and blow up the whole EMU is going to be quite delicious.
I think the Germans have a rather excellent word for it which I am not going to try to spell at this time in the morning.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
Its not just politically toxic because of Italy. Far more toxic, last time Germany did that they ended up with a wheelbarrow of cash to buy a loaf of Bread, going all Godwins and everyone losing everything and half the women in Prussia raped by Soviet Troops.
Isn't it a bit early for Godwin?
Alas when the ghost of Mr Hitler is stll casting a long shadow over Germany and influencing policy decisions Godwin is part of the equation.
Similarly the German refugee crisis is a direct result of Eight Million Germans being expelled from parts of Germany annexed by Russia, Poland and Czech after World War 2 and fleeing west as refugees. While that was within living memory Germany would never have stood aside as another refugee crisis unfolded in southern Europe.
And he'll still lose by a landslide at the general election.
The ramping of candidates in an election where almost no-one here is voting, is pointless. Here we're pretty much all all more interested in how to make money, than in the actual result on Nov. 8.
Do you have shares in nuclear fallout shelter manufacturers? If so, we should be told.
LOL no, I just live in the middle of the desert!
It was just a rare (from me anyway) comment on the number of posters mindlessly ramping one side or the other, in an election where almost no-one on this board is actually voting. There's one pro-Hillary shill in particular who has commented 300 times on nothing else, almost certainly a waste of the DNC's cash.
Sure, we all have an opinion as to the relative merits (or otherwise) of the two most unpopular candidates in history, but most of us here are just looking for a betting angle - given there's nothing we can do to affect the result of the contest.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
Its not just politically toxic because of Italy. Far more toxic, last time Germany did that they ended up with a wheelbarrow of cash to buy a loaf of Bread, going all Godwins and everyone losing everything and half the women in Prussia raped by Soviet Troops.
Really, that is nonsense. There is no inflation at all in Germany, indeed prices are falling. The State runs a surplus and has been paying down debt. Their economy is very strong and can easily handle this. Its just out of step looking to do this in 2016 rather than 2008 and the Germans have been the ones insisting on a rule book that creates artificial barriers to doing so.
I never said it is the right course of action. Just that it is unthinkable because of Weimar. We are animals not computers.
Not entirely sure why Corbyn needs a sacrifice given his comfortable victory, unless one counts the innards of various PLP members. And I think one of Corbyn's few redeeming features is a lack of superstitious beliefs. That said getting rid of Seamus is a good idea in its own terms because the man is a useless pillock.
Paul Mason would be a terrible replacement. Increasingly unhinged and unconnected to reality I think even Syriza in its pomp might have hesitated to employ a cannon that was quite that loose.
Mason is building a media brand - the maverick commentator who "gets" the insurgency on the left. He would be ill-advised to take the Labour job if offered because (1) it would mean a pay cut and (2) because it would keep him off the TV and away from social media. If it were offered, though, it would inflame tensions within Labour even further and would be the clearest possible sign that Corbyn has no interest whatsoever in unity. I rather hope it happens.
Doesn't Corbyn's press officer have to be someone of this ilk though? As a matter of principle Corbyn seems to refuse to countenance compromising on his views on anything for the sake of the electorate and/or the (tabloid) media. Any press officer who tries to make him see sense on that is going to quit within a few months out of frustration. Someone like Owen Jones (who might have been perfect) would be an example of this.
If the UK was able to bail out the cream of it's banking sector, one would have thought that the Germans could manage? Or is the extra support provided by the BoE the difference?
It is now impossible within the EU to have state bailouts of the banking sector. The bank recovery and resolution directive (BRRD) has changed the game. It means that taxpayer money is no longer available with retail bondholders and uninsured depositors taking the haircut to save the bank. That's ordinary investors and people's life savings being hit by 10-15% in order to save the bank. If it even looks as if that is going to happen there will be a run on Deutsche as people empty their life savings and put them in a local bank. Eventually the government will impose the haircut on the remaining balance.
If the UK was able to bail out the cream of it's banking sector, one would have thought that the Germans could manage? Or is the extra support provided by the BoE the difference?
It is the critical function of lender of last resort. In the UK the BoE met that function doing whatever it took to keep UK banks operating so there was no systemic risk. The ECB playbook does not really allow them to fulfil that role (since it involves spending other peoples' money) which was a major part of the 2008 crisis.
Eventually after a lot of unnecessary damage it did but the Germans have been adamant that that should not happen again with their "bail in" ideas. Having German citizens being amongst the first to suffer this (after Cyprus where the biggest victims were Russian gangsters so no one cared) was not a part of the plan.
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
What do you think the rules should be, and specifically who do you think should be losing out to protect people who bought the bank's bonds?
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
And they've already told Italy that bailing out banks is a no-no.
The only way a bank the size of Deutsche is getting bailed out is if the ECB "print" several hundred billion Euro, which is against every rule in the book. But not doing it risks a domino effect, with Commerzbank next to fall.
It could quite conceivably wreck the Euro as a currency, Deutsche is way too big to fail.
it's a question of when not if. Merkel's refusal to bail them out on Monday won't help the inevitable happening sooner
We are back in 2008 with EU banks once again exposed to market apprehension and, unlike their UK counterparts, with no obvious lender of last resort standing behind them to give confidence. The ECB will not stand behind them because that involves spending non German money or at least pledging non German credit. The Bundesbank has the power and financial resource to do so but not the legal responsibility. The rulebook (which is about to be jettisoned again) stops the German State from doing so.
What a crock the Euro system is.
Merkel might be forced into a position where she has to break the same rules that Germany crucified the Southern European economies to enforce. That is just not going to fly.
It makes the Sarkozy plan look an interesting possibility (should he manage to get elected, of course...).
Oh, is he running for president, I didn't know that.
Hardly relevant to the point, which was people can draw a mighty crowd and still lose. In fairness Corbyn hasn't lost yet, and it does not follow that just because we think he will trump, who also draws crowds, will lose, but it doesn't mean he will do well either.
On Milne, he's fantastic at his job. No one else is so adept at keeping his boss in the news or dragging a story out for days and days. Ok, usually it's for negative reasons, but he's on the right track.
Corbyn might well have wanted him gone awhile ago for all I know, or others of the Corbynistas brand. If so, they probably didn't want to appear weak and do do before Corbyn was internally secure. Which they now are.
Watched the Kuenssberg interview with Corbyn this morning. I find his interviews absolutely fascinating both in the way he conducts himself (generally like he's sitting on a wasp) and for the sheer head-in-the-sand-ness of it all. The immigration segment was jaw dropping.
He does seem to find encounters with people who have the temerity to question him perplexing in the extreme.
Watched the Kuenssberg interview with Corbyn this morning. I find his interviews absolutely fascinating both in the way he conducts himself (generally like he's sitting on a wasp) and for the sheer head-in-the-sand-ness of it all. The immigration segment was jaw dropping.
He does seem to find encounters with people who have the temerity to question him perplexing in the extreme.
Not at all,he welcomes questions. So long as it is on the subject he wants to talk about.
Ok in fairness again that's most politicians too, he's just awful at not seeming offended at being asked.
Watched the Kuenssberg interview with Corbyn this morning. I find his interviews absolutely fascinating both in the way he conducts himself (generally like he's sitting on a wasp) and for the sheer head-in-the-sand-ness of it all. The immigration segment was jaw dropping.
He does seem to find encounters with people who have the temerity to question him perplexing in the extreme.
Not at all,he welcomes questions. So long as it is on the subject he wants to talk about.
Ok in fairness again that's most politicians too, he's just awful at not seeming offended at being asked.
Most successful politicians can find a way to answer the question they wanted to have been asked. Corbyn seems mightily offended if the questions stray from those he was expecting on the subject.
And he'll still lose by a landslide at the general election.
The ramping of candidates in an election where almost no-one here is voting, is pointless. Here we're pretty much all all more interested in how to make money, than in the actual result on Nov. 8.
Do you have shares in nuclear fallout shelter manufacturers? If so, we should be told.
LOL no, I just live in the middle of the desert!
It was just a rare (from me anyway) comment on the number of posters mindlessly ramping one side or the other, in an election where almost no-one on this board is actually voting. There's one pro-Hillary shill in particular who has commented 300 times on nothing else, almost certainly a waste of the DNC's cash.
Sure, we all have an opinion as to the relative merits (or otherwise) of the two most unpopular candidates in history, but most of us here are just looking for a betting angle - given there's nothing we can do to affect the result of the contest.
The rare pro-Hilary comments are somewhat outweighed by the relentless pro-Trump, anti-Clinton commentary. Few add much to the sum of human knowledge.
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
What do you think the rules should be, and specifically who do you think should be losing out to protect people who bought the bank's bonds?
I would let each country get on with it as they see fit. If they want to wipe out the shareholders then that's fine (see RBS, Lloyds and Northern Rock), if they want to hit uninsured depositors, that's fine and if they want to go after the bond holders that's fine as well. Tbh, it's the imposition of the rules on everyone rather than the rules themselves I find most egregious. I am looking forward to the German government having to explain to ordinary people why their savings have been confiscated, or to other EU nations as to why it was fair for them to pump €150bn into Deutsche but others can't do the same for their banks. After years of preaching from Berlin about how awful our banks are and how awful Southern European economies are it is a delicious irony that Germany finds itself in this situation. €600bn in derivatives exposures, over here that would not be possible.
Watched the Kuenssberg interview with Corbyn this morning. I find his interviews absolutely fascinating both in the way he conducts himself (generally like he's sitting on a wasp) and for the sheer head-in-the-sand-ness of it all. The immigration segment was jaw dropping.
He does seem to find encounters with people who have the temerity to question him perplexing in the extreme.
Not at all,he welcomes questions. So long as it is on the subject he wants to talk about.
Ok in fairness again that's most politicians too, he's just awful at not seeming offended at being asked.
Most successful politicians can find a way to answer the question they wanted to have been asked. Corbyn seems mightily offended if the questions stray from those he was expecting on the subject.
Oh indeed. If you can't do that, don't do what he did though. That 'can we have a question on the NHS'? Repeated angrily several times was laughable. Just go 'oh, are we still on (that nonsense topic)? A shame. Very well, (answer).
You show disappointment they are not focusing on what you want when you have more important subjects, without seeming too entitled.
Once again yes minister taught us all about not answering questions. Sure it's a formula we see overused, but clearly it works or they wouldn't keep doing so. The old ' I think the real question is...' 'That's not the question...' Works at press conferences rather than interview since the journalist will not be as able to cone back at your evasion.
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
It seems as though the political decision to hurt Southern European countries as much as they could to keep them in line is about to come and bite them in the bum. I am personally looking forwards to it, years of holier than thou preaching from Berlin and Frankfurt has made me indifferent to their travails. If there is some blowback to the UK, we'll just have to deal with it, watching the German banks crumble or the German government enforce a "good enough for thee, but not me" approach and blow up the whole EMU is going to be quite delicious.
Yes a bit like A50. Sounds great on paper but, like any battle plan, doesn't survive the first contact.
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
What do you think the rules should be, and specifically who do you think should be losing out to protect people who bought the bank's bonds?
I would let each country get on with it as they see fit. If they want to wipe out the shareholders then that's fine (see RBS, Lloyds and Northern Rock), if they want to hit uninsured depositors, that's fine and if they want to go after the bond holders that's fine as well. Tbh, it's the imposition of the rules on everyone rather than the rules themselves I find most egregious. I am looking forward to the German government having to explain to ordinary people why their savings have been confiscated, or to other EU nations as to why it was fair for them to pump €150bn into Deutsche but others can't do the same for their banks. After years of preaching from Berlin about how awful our banks are and how awful Southern European economies are it is a delicious irony that Germany finds itself in this situation. €600bn in derivatives exposures, over here that would not be possible.
You were saying the rules were crazy, that implies that there's some alternative set of rules that isn't crazy. What are you actually advocating?
Yes, it says someone is lying given the Trump venue fire safety certificate was for 7500.
Trump draws crowd in GOP stronghold shocker....
Trump probably doesn’t have to worry much about winning Melbourne and surrounding Brevard County, solidly Republican territory where GOP voters outnumber registered Democrats by about 40,000.
And he'll still lose by a landslide at the general election.
The ramping of candidates in an election where almost no-one here is voting, is pointless. Here we're pretty much all all more interested in how to make money, than in the actual result on Nov. 8.
Do you have shares in nuclear fallout shelter manufacturers? If so, we should be told.
LOL no, I just live in the middle of the desert!
It was just a rare (from me anyway) comment on the number of posters mindlessly ramping one side or the other, in an election where almost no-one on this board is actually voting. There's one pro-Hillary shill in particular who has commented 300 times on nothing else, almost certainly a waste of the DNC's cash.
Sure, we all have an opinion as to the relative merits (or otherwise) of the two most unpopular candidates in history, but most of us here are just looking for a betting angle - given there's nothing we can do to affect the result of the contest.
"There's one pro-Hillary shill in particular"
Really? All I see is reaction to the Trump ramping and, in particular, the stupid pseudo-doctor stuff.
I'd love to be paid to give my opinions on the Internet. How do I sign up?
Oh, I just have. Putin's a great man. Russia's doing brilliantly helping the lovely Assad. North Korea's a great place to go on holiday. Venezuela's economy is booming. The Conservatives are evil baby-eaters. Vote TRUMP!
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
It seems as though the political decision to hurt Southern European countries as much as they could to keep them in line is about to come and bite them in the bum. I am personally looking forwards to it, years of holier than thou preaching from Berlin and Frankfurt has made me indifferent to their travails. If there is some blowback to the UK, we'll just have to deal with it, watching the German banks crumble or the German government enforce a "good enough for thee, but not me" approach and blow up the whole EMU is going to be quite delicious.
Yes a bit like A50. Sounds great on paper but, like any battle plan, doesn't survive the first contact.
..and one of the reasons is that Sainsbury's penchant for rebranding foods from other companies under their own name. People don't like it when well remembered and loved brands are made invisible. True other major supermarkets do this too - Tesco is a prime example - but Sainsbury's leads the pack.
..and one of the reasons is that Sainsbury's penchant for rebranding foods from other companies under their own name. People don't like it when well remembered and loved brands are made invisible. True other major supermarkets do this too - Tesco is a prime example - but Sainsbury's leads the pack.
Aldi do it far more I suspect, but no one cares when they make it 70% cheaper.
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
What do you think the rules should be, and specifically who do you think should be losing out to protect people who bought the bank's bonds?
I would let each country get on with it as they see fit. If they want to wipe out the shareholders then that's fine (see RBS, Lloyds and Northern Rock), if they want to hit uninsured depositors, that's fine and if they want to go after the bond holders that's fine as well. Tbh, it's the imposition of the rules on everyone rather than the rules themselves I find most egregious. I am looking forward to the German government having to explain to ordinary people why their savings have been confiscated, or to other EU nations as to why it was fair for them to pump €150bn into Deutsche but others can't do the same for their banks. After years of preaching from Berlin about how awful our banks are and how awful Southern European economies are it is a delicious irony that Germany finds itself in this situation. €600bn in derivatives exposures, over here that would not be possible.
You were saying the rules were crazy, that implies that there's some set of rules that isn't crazy. What are you actually advocating?
Let each nation decide how to deal with its own banking sector. Nationalisation, bondholder haircuts and whatever else should all be available for governments to use at their discretion. If it were me, I'd bail out/nationalise Deutsche and then break them up. Shut down the dangerous derivatives division, sell the investment bank and shrink the retail bank until it becomes manageable and then refloat it.
..and one of the reasons is that Sainsbury's penchant for rebranding foods from other companies under their own name. People don't like it when well remembered and loved brands are made invisible. True other major supermarkets do this too - Tesco is a prime example - but Sainsbury's leads the pack.
Used Argos for the first time in years a few weeks ago. Twice In One day and got same day delivery each time, very good.
Significantly, he was not involved in any of the media briefing ahead of Mr Corbyn's keynote speech to the Labour conference this afternoon - a task normally carried out by the leader's most senior press spokesman.
The party is already searching for a replacement for Kevin Slocombe, Mr Corbyn's former head of media who left his post in the summer to work for Bristol mayor Marvin Rees. https://t.co/EhnP7LMINQ
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
What do you think the rules should be, and specifically who do you think should be losing out to protect people who bought the bank's bonds?
I would let each country get on with it as they see fit. If they want to wipe out the shareholders then that's fine (see RBS, Lloyds and Northern Rock), if they want to hit uninsured depositors, that's fine and if they want to go after the bond holders that's fine as well. Tbh, it's the imposition of the rules on everyone rather than the rules themselves I find most egregious. I am looking forward to the German government having to explain to ordinary people why their savings have been confiscated, or to other EU nations as to why it was fair for them to pump €150bn into Deutsche but others can't do the same for their banks. After years of preaching from Berlin about how awful our banks are and how awful Southern European economies are it is a delicious irony that Germany finds itself in this situation. €600bn in derivatives exposures, over here that would not be possible.
You were saying the rules were crazy, that implies that there's some set of rules that isn't crazy. What are you actually advocating?
Let each nation decide how to deal with its own banking sector. Nationalisation, bondholder haircuts and whatever else should all be available for governments to use at their discretion. If it were me, I'd bail out/nationalise Deutsche and then break them up. Shut down the dangerous derivatives division, sell the investment bank and shrink the retail bank until it becomes manageable and then refloat it.
Up-thread you were criticizing letting holders of insecured bonds get a haircut. Presumably that means you'd spend taxpayers money to pay people who bought bonds in a private bank?
Angela Merkel is going to have to go cap in hand to the Yanks and hope they will kick the actual payment of the fines into the long grass.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
That article in the DM is beyond embarrassing but that does not mean that the Germans don't have a real problem on their hands.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
The issue isn't Germany's ability to pay for a bail out, it is the crazy EU rules that govern bailouts. The BRRD mechanisms impose haircuts on retail bond holders and uninsured depositors, i.e. the littlest of the little guys. What we're talking about is a €150bn hit on ordinary people's investments and life savings. In Germany the last time the government confiscated people's money it didn't end well.
It seems as though the political decision to hurt Southern European countries as much as they could to keep them in line is about to come and bite them in the bum. I am personally looking forwards to it, years of holier than thou preaching from Berlin and Frankfurt has made me indifferent to their travails. If there is some blowback to the UK, we'll just have to deal with it, watching the German banks crumble or the German government enforce a "good enough for thee, but not me" approach and blow up the whole EMU is going to be quite delicious.
Yes a bit like A50. Sounds great on paper but, like any battle plan, doesn't survive the first contact.
And he'll still lose by a landslide at the general election.
The ramping of candidates in an election where almost no-one here is voting, is pointless. Here we're pretty much all all more interested in how to make money, than in the actual result on Nov. 8.
Do you have shares in nuclear fallout shelter manufacturers? If so, we should be told.
LOL no, I just live in the middle of the desert!
It was just a rare (from me anyway) comment on the number of posters mindlessly ramping one side or the other, in an election where almost no-one on this board is actually voting. There's one pro-Hillary shill in particular who has commented 300 times on nothing else, almost certainly a waste of the DNC's cash.
Sure, we all have an opinion as to the relative merits (or otherwise) of the two most unpopular candidates in history, but most of us here are just looking for a betting angle - given there's nothing we can do to affect the result of the contest.
"There's one pro-Hillary shill in particular"
Really? All I see is reaction to the Trump ramping and, in particular, the stupid pseudo-doctor stuff.
I'd love to be paid to give my opinions on the Internet. How do I sign up?
Oh, I just have. Putin's a great man. Russia's doing brilliantly helping the lovely Assad. North Korea's a great place to go on holiday. Venezuela's economy is booming. The Conservatives are evil baby-eaters. Vote TRUMP!
@619 is a new poster who is resolutely pro-Hillary but doesn't say much else.
..and one of the reasons is that Sainsbury's penchant for rebranding foods from other companies under their own name. People don't like it when well remembered and loved brands are made invisible. True other major supermarkets do this too - Tesco is a prime example - but Sainsbury's leads the pack.
Used Argos for the first time in years a few weeks ago. Twice In One day and got same day delivery each time, very good.
In store is dreadful. You do all the work - ordering payingand still have to wait
I don't see why Milne leaving makes much difference, his actions overruling Lewis on Trident were authorised by Corbyn and McDonnell and in touch with the views of the Labour membership at the moment. They also removed Lewis as a short term replacement for Corbyn given his 'Tory' views on defence
RIP Shimon Peres. A great statesman I was fortunate to be able to ask him a question when he attended the 2003 NUS conference I was attending as a delegate
Up-thread you were criticizing letting holders of insecured bonds get a haircut. Presumably that means you'd spend taxpayers money to pay people who bought bonds in a private bank?
Probably, but I'd also impose a bank break up in the aftermath, destroying existing shareholders. The problem is that the rules are reactive rather than proactive. Hitting bondholders will make it very, very difficult for the bank to raise money in the future, it just strores up problems. Rules to limit derivatives exposures, balance sheet sizes, ring fencing of retail operations and higher capital ratios are the right way forwards. As I see it we have three of the four in the UK either in place or planned and Germany has one with no plans for any of the others.
Similarly the German refugee crisis is a direct result of Eight Million Germans being expelled from parts of Germany annexed by Russia, Poland and Czech after World War 2 and fleeing west as refugees. While that was within living memory Germany would never have stood aside as another refugee crisis unfolded in southern Europe.
Link? I read the German press regularly and watch German TV news coverage now and then, and I've never heard this referred to. The concern about expelled Germans was a big factor associated primarily with the fairly far right (CSU) in the 50s and it delayed recognition of the Oder-Neisse border with Poland, but because it tended to get mixed up with revanchism (give us back our lost lands) it never got broad acceptance, and when people had settled it evaporated as an issue - I've not heard it mentioned for years.
Rather, I think the Hitler background is a factor - having been the cause of mass forced migration followed by extermination, many Germans feel that they need to be especially careful not to shut an eye to refugee misery. It's a decent fundamental outlook though of course one can quarrel with practical consequences.
And he'll still lose by a landslide at the general election.
The ramping of candidates in an election where almost no-one here is voting, is pointless. Here we're pretty much all all more interested in how to make money, than in the actual result on Nov. 8.
Do you have shares in nuclear fallout shelter manufacturers? If so, we should be told.
LOL no, I just live in the middle of the desert!
It was just a rare (from me anyway) comment on the number of posters mindlessly ramping one side or the other, in an election where almost no-one on this board is actually voting. There's one pro-Hillary shill in particular who has commented 300 times on nothing else, almost certainly a waste of the DNC's cash.
Sure, we all have an opinion as to the relative merits (or otherwise) of the two most unpopular candidates in history, but most of us here are just looking for a betting angle - given there's nothing we can do to affect the result of the contest.
"There's one pro-Hillary shill in particular"
Really? All I see is reaction to the Trump ramping and, in particular, the stupid pseudo-doctor stuff.
I'd love to be paid to give my opinions on the Internet. How do I sign up?
Oh, I just have. Putin's a great man. Russia's doing brilliantly helping the lovely Assad. North Korea's a great place to go on holiday. Venezuela's economy is booming. The Conservatives are evil baby-eaters. Vote TRUMP!
@619 is a new poster who is resolutely pro-Hillary but doesn't say much else.
more nevertrump. He is a terrible, racist human being
Miss Plato, hmm. I wonder if that's cock-up or something more sinister. Hopefully it's just something going wonky rather than something being detonated.
Watched the Kuenssberg interview with Corbyn this morning. I find his interviews absolutely fascinating both in the way he conducts himself (generally like he's sitting on a wasp) and for the sheer head-in-the-sand-ness of it all. The immigration segment was jaw dropping.
What could yet do for Corbyn is if Labour loses heavily in the 2017 county council and 2018 metropolitan council local elections, such that there's no longer any hiding from the fact that under him the party is going backwards compared to where it was under Miliband, and that even the 2016 local elections were a high point. According to the latest YouGov, 63% of C2DEs want tighter controls on immigration, compared to 15% wanting no change or looser control. It is indeed a head-in-the-sand approach from Corbyn, topped by extra lashings of extra political naivety by the prominent way in which he is willing to espouse such an electorally disasterous do-nothing-of-substance approach.
Patrick Wintour: Strategically bold. Corbyn seems to accept Brexit but wants to retain free movement, the single most unpopular aspect of EU membership
Comments
'He appeared to have all the power of Alastair Campbell at his peak but without the skills '
Given the corrosive effect of Mr Campbell and his alleged bullying ways, I can't think of a bigger insult to use than those words above to describe anyone.
Labour - and the corbynite idiots - need to lose an election before they understand how screwed they are.
Oh, and antics like changing someone's speech without telling him, by editing the autocue as he's about to go on stage - not big and not clever, especially when your boss is going on about party unity.
Seems the media has finally latched on.
"Germany's Banks are a Timebomb. And if they crash it will be 2008 all over again"
http://dailym.ai/2dqzIqI
Oh, and silly "relative" "poverty" definitions are bollocks. Making the rich less rich doesn't make those at the bottom any better off, nor does just handing them cash as supplicants of the State.
There are a tiny number of people in the UK living in actual poverty, as the rest of the world might define it. Someone is not "in poverty" because they have last year's iPhone or because their satellite TV is only 42" instead of 55.
I think Mr Mid-Life-Crisis would be fabulous. He talks in loony lefty pamphlet language and is incredibly angry. He's just placard away from a rant these days.
Of course - Dr Eoin would be ideal - he's a one man wonder at fact checking too.
They don't have a mechanism in the EZ to bail out banks at this level.
I thought Seumas Milne’s one year contract was up, er that’s it. – No sacrificial lamb, no olive branch sacking for party unity, just not very good at the job, as Mandelson predicted.
And soon to be return to the Guardian by all accounts?
Paul Mason would be a terrible replacement. Increasingly unhinged and unconnected to reality I think even Syriza in its pomp might have hesitated to employ a cannon that was quite that loose.
Who exactly is running the South African USA police. They seem to be acting more like the Selous Scouts under Uncle Ron ('oil leak') Reid Reddy?
http://dailym.ai/2dqxdVw
The only way a bank the size of Deutsche is getting bailed out is if the ECB "print" several hundred billion Euro, which is against every rule in the book. But not doing it risks a domino effect, with Commerzbank next to fall.
It could quite conceivably wreck the Euro as a currency, Deutsche is way too big to fail.
Two pictures sez it all really:
https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/780934964607062016
https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/780935426592890880
I liked the final sentence of that article:
"Here, in Britain, we should surely be thankful that, after the Brexit vote, we are preparing to jump clear of the clattering train as it heads for a ravine"
- although landing on railway ballast at 40mph will not be unpainful.
The US fine is a proposed fine and it is normal to haggle about these things. The provision made might yet prove sufficient but that is not the real problem. Their real problem is how many toxic derivatives and associated insurance they are still sitting on even although they have managed to wind down some of the exposure.
Germany can afford to bail out its banks and, unlike Greece, does not need EU help to do so. It is just going to be politically toxic to do so having failed to take that step earlier when everyone else was doing it. It may be the final straw for Merkel who looks increasingly unlikely to stand again.
it's a question of when not if. Merkel's refusal to bail them out on Monday won't help the inevitable happening sooner
one inch2.54cm closer to the precipice.What a crock the Euro system is.
The ramping of candidates in an election where almost no-one here is voting, is pointless. Here we're pretty much all all more interested in how to make money, than in the actual result on Nov. 8.
Why wouldn't she want to stand down? And who would replace her?
:-)
But Merkel doesn't want to do that so the EU is a convenient whipping boy
It seems as though the political decision to hurt Southern European countries as much as they could to keep them in line is about to come and bite them in the bum. I am personally looking forwards to it, years of holier than thou preaching from Berlin and Frankfurt has made me indifferent to their travails. If there is some blowback to the UK, we'll just have to deal with it, watching the German banks crumble or the German government enforce a "good enough for thee, but not me" approach and blow up the whole EMU is going to be quite delicious.
Similarly the German refugee crisis is a direct result of Eight Million Germans being expelled from parts of Germany annexed by Russia, Poland and Czech after World War 2 and fleeing west as refugees. While that was within living memory Germany would never have stood aside as another refugee crisis unfolded in southern Europe.
It was just a rare (from me anyway) comment on the number of posters mindlessly ramping one side or the other, in an election where almost no-one on this board is actually voting. There's one pro-Hillary shill in particular who has commented 300 times on nothing else, almost certainly a waste of the DNC's cash.
Sure, we all have an opinion as to the relative merits (or otherwise) of the two most unpopular candidates in history, but most of us here are just looking for a betting angle - given there's nothing we can do to affect the result of the contest.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/27/ignore-the-talk-of-labour-unity--tom-watson-just-humiliated-jere/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3XwsPvu6yI&feature=youtu.be
Those vox pops look really genuine.........
Eventually after a lot of unnecessary damage it did but the Germans have been adamant that that should not happen again with their "bail in" ideas. Having German citizens being amongst the first to suffer this (after Cyprus where the biggest victims were Russian gangsters so no one cared) was not a part of the plan.
It makes the Sarkozy plan look an interesting possibility (should he manage to get elected, of course...).
On Milne, he's fantastic at his job. No one else is so adept at keeping his boss in the news or dragging a story out for days and days. Ok, usually it's for negative reasons, but he's on the right track.
Corbyn might well have wanted him gone awhile ago for all I know, or others of the Corbynistas brand. If so, they probably didn't want to appear weak and do do before Corbyn was internally secure. Which they now are.
He does seem to find encounters with people who have the temerity to question him perplexing in the extreme.
Ok in fairness again that's most politicians too, he's just awful at not seeming offended at being asked.
I hope he isn't replaced with someone more competent (Milne, that is, not Corbyn).
You show disappointment they are not focusing on what you want when you have more important subjects, without seeming too entitled.
Once again yes minister taught us all about not answering questions. Sure it's a formula we see overused, but clearly it works or they wouldn't keep doing so. The old ' I think the real question is...' 'That's not the question...' Works at press conferences rather than interview since the journalist will not be as able to cone back at your evasion.
Note: @kle4 one for you to assess.
Trump probably doesn’t have to worry much about winning Melbourne and surrounding Brevard County, solidly Republican territory where GOP voters outnumber registered Democrats by about 40,000.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/09/27/trump-goes-from-debate-stage-to-sunshine-state/
Really? All I see is reaction to the Trump ramping and, in particular, the stupid pseudo-doctor stuff.
I'd love to be paid to give my opinions on the Internet. How do I sign up?
Oh, I just have. Putin's a great man. Russia's doing brilliantly helping the lovely Assad. North Korea's a great place to go on holiday. Venezuela's economy is booming. The Conservatives are evil baby-eaters. Vote TRUMP!
..and one of the reasons is that Sainsbury's penchant for rebranding foods from other companies under their own name. People don't like it when well remembered and loved brands are made invisible. True other major supermarkets do this too - Tesco is a prime example - but Sainsbury's leads the pack.
Theoretically.
If anyone knows Sam Allardyce, please tell him to get in touch. We could always use more store managers and yes, we can pay in pies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/27/britain-leaps-into-seventh-place-in-competitiveness-rankings-as/
I think a post-Brexit UK can be the number one most competitive country in the world. Let's hope Tezza is of like mind.
Seumas return to Guardian
Significantly, he was not involved in any of the media briefing ahead of Mr Corbyn's keynote speech to the Labour conference this afternoon - a task normally carried out by the leader's most senior press spokesman.
The party is already searching for a replacement for Kevin Slocombe, Mr Corbyn's former head of media who left his post in the summer to work for Bristol mayor Marvin Rees.
https://t.co/EhnP7LMINQ
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37449771
Brexit due to David Cameron’s ‘shit’ campaign, says senior German official
http://tinyurl.com/j9t6uqk
bill mitchell is some crazy trump ramper. i wouldnt listen to anything he says.
SA Police
Please avoid travel if you can due to statewide power outage. Be patient and obey the direction of police manning intersections. Take care.
Rather, I think the Hitler background is a factor - having been the cause of mass forced migration followed by extermination, many Germans feel that they need to be especially careful not to shut an eye to refugee misery. It's a decent fundamental outlook though of course one can quarrel with practical consequences.
If he thinks a migrant impact fund will alleviate peoples fears on immigration, then he is deluded.