politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters podcast: How favourable are Brits tow
Comments
-
So you advocate no regulation at all, then.SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.0 -
First rule of tabloid patriotism is that plucky Brits can do no wrong when abroad.Foxy said:
Strange how British drug traffikers get tabloid support, but I suspect that she has learnt her lesson now.DecrepitJohnL said:
Huzzah for King Boris. Titan of the FO.Big_G_NorthWales said:Laura Plummer pardonned by Egyptian President
0 -
rkrkrk said:
The interest rates may not be different but our credit lines have been largely used up making it more difficult to borrow at the same low rates during the next recession.DavidL said:
We were in a weak position because banking and finance is a large part of our economy and we had massive regulatory failures. Brown deserves his share of the blame for that - albeit I doubt that the Tories would have done much differently.DecrepitJohnL said:
The record after the crash was better but mixed. The refusal to have a spending review because cuts would have been a part of it undermining his campaign against Tory cuts was grossly irresponsible and dishonest. There were a number of drivers of public spending and commitments made, most obviously in terms of in work benefits, that made further growth in spending very difficult to resist. The Northern Rock situation could have been handled a lot better. But the economy was kept liquid and alive even although the collapse in GDP was substantial. What it also showed was that too much of government revenue was coming from unsustainable income flows generated by the City.MarqueeMark said:
.DecrepitJohnL said:Morris_Dancer said:
What I found most egregious about Brown was his fundamental dishonesty. The constant reanouncement of money already promised. The adding up of years of spending to produce higher figures. The manipulation of the government accounts. The destruction of our pension industry with hidden taxes. He was not the first and subsequent Chancellors have repeated some of his innovations to their discredit but he was not trustworthy.
But Brown not running a surplus post 2001 made no difference to our ability to borrow, and rates at which we can borrow have plummeted.Big_G_NorthWales said:No 10 statement - Theresa May has full confidence in Philip Hammond.
Read into that whatever you think
Philip Hammond is good at running the Treasury but poor at the politics, especially within his own party.0 -
Mr. L, when Brown came to power the deficit was declining. He then followed Conservative spending plans and ran a surplus. After this, he followed his own judgement and ran up £153bn of deficit over about 7 years, before his regulatory system did such a good job that we had the highest ever deficit, and the deepest recession in British history.
The situation he inherited was far better than the legacy he left. The deficit was smaller when he came to high office than when he left. The debt was smaller.
And for those tempted to say it was just the financial crisis, leaving aside that the UK has quite the slice of the financial pie, I'd point out Australia suffered far less because they had better regulation. Who was responsible for the regulatory structure the UK financial sector had? Gordon Brown.
Mr. Charles, quite. It was similar, writ large, to his vindictive shit approach to the PM's salary.0 -
The graph here is very telling. Highlight Britain and set the years to 2000-2008.david_herdson said:
Of course it makes a bloody difference. Firstly, the government wouldn't have borrowed anything like as much year-on-year if it had gone into the crisis with a structural balance rather than a structural deficit of £50-80bn pa. Secondly, markets will be more inclined to lend at low rates to countries with lower debt-to-GDP ratios. Thirdly, a national consensus of low debt makes a more attractive lender; Labour proved that there was no such consensus, therefore there was greater risk, therefore, higher rates were demanded. There's no need for counterfactuals on this; other countries offer all the evidence needed.rkrkrk said:
We were in a weak position because banking and finance is a large part of our economy and we had massive regulatory failures. Brown deserves his share of the blame for that - albeit I doubt that the Tories would have done much differently.DavidL said:
The increase in the debt/GDP ratio in the years 2001-2007 was unforgiveable and put us in a very weak condition. He allowed the economy to grow rapidly in those years by a massive increase in debt and credit which is still causing us problems. If you add the PFI spending to the very large increases in public spending on the books the true level of public debt in a time of high growth was a disgrace and, directly contrary to his assertions, put us in a very weak place to deal with the crash.
What I found most egregious about Brown was his fundamental dishonesty. The constant reanouncement of money already promised. The adding up of years of spending to produce higher figures. The manipulation of the government accounts. The destruction of our pension industry with hidden taxes. He was not the first and subsequent Chancellors have repeated some of his innovations to their discredit but he was not trustworthy.
But Brown not running a surplus post 2001 made no difference to our ability to borrow, and rates at which we can borrow have plummeted.
https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-deficit.htm
In 2000, Britain was 11th out of 35 in the OECD (excluding the EU and Eurozone joint figures), for net budget deficit, with a surplus of 1.4%.
By 2007, Britain had dropped to 33rd out of 38, with a deficit of 2.63% - at a time when the general trend was upwards (14 countries were running surplusses at the time greater than Britain's had been in 2000).
Even now (or in 2016 - the most recent OECD stats), after eight years of spending restraint, Britain is still running the fourth-highest deficit in the organisation, albeit that 11 countries are grouped fairly closely, with deficits between 1.5% and 3%).0 -
Great!Richard_Nabavi said:0 -
That will be a few more letters fired off to Brady?Scott_P said:
Must be getting close to the 48 required now?0 -
Except if they are football fans. Then whatever happens is all their fault.SandyRentool said:
First rule of tabloid patriotism is that plucky Brits can do no wrong when abroad.Foxy said:
Strange how British drug traffikers get tabloid support, but I suspect that she has learnt her lesson now.DecrepitJohnL said:
Huzzah for King Boris. Titan of the FO.Big_G_NorthWales said:Laura Plummer pardonned by Egyptian President
0 -
Only an option?!eek said:
I'm adding it as an option for Feb 12-14th when we are on a trip to London to see Hamilton amongst other items...Richard_Nabavi said:
Worth coming just for the house alone (although you won’t see it’s full glory the way the exhibition is set up)0 -
Regarding the statistics we should be measuring and publicising the change in GDP per head rather than the change in GDP.
If GDP doubles but the UK population also doubles, there is no increase in the average wealth of individuals.
The time to cheer is when GDP stays the same but the population is falling.0 -
Brown was a terrible Chancellor/PMHHemmelig said:
I well remember about 10 years ago there were multiple people on here loudly proclaiming BROWN IS THE MOST USELESS PM EVER....some of those people are still here, others like the late lamented Martin Day are long gone. But as a Tory voter it pains me to say that May makes Brown look like a political colossus in retrospect, and you are right that Boris or Mogg would be far worse still.tyson said:
Quite true. Poor Theresa. The only redeeming legacy factor on a Boris succession is that she'll at least default one place higher on British PM's....OK she'll still be one considered one of the worst and mostly pitied, not invited to parties, given any lucrative commissions, global positions with a bargain basement memoir soon to be offered free on Kindle and such like.....Stark_Dawning said:
Agreed. The poor woman is in an impossible situation. Boris will use a soft Brexit as the perfect excuse to oust her. Of course, once that's achieved he'll sign up to the same version of Brexit himself and will probably get away with it, but that will be scant consolation for Theresa, who'll be out on her ear and barely warranting a footnote in the annals of history.
But in that great pantheon of PM's she'll be able to piss on Boris's head in due course....although to have the likes of Gordon Brown and John Major well above her is not what she imagined this time last year...
*awaits inevitable puerile rebuttal from HYUFD comparing Brown and May's electoral performance*
But he was good at politics - he ate up the Labour Party to further his own agenda
May is doing an ok job of managing a difficult situation. But is terrible at politics.
For me she outranks Brown as a PM0 -
It could be pre-agreed by the 27 in the event that negotiations go to the wire with the prospect of a cliff edge exit on WTO rules which would be a lose-lose. It could also be required if the talks drag on and there are timing problems in getting the required ratifications. It is not a few weeks delay - it is eight weeks on a very tight schedule.Richard_Nabavi said:
Why would anyone want to go to all the trouble of trying to get 28 countries to agree unanimously to a few weeks' delay, especially since there's almost certainly going to be a two-year transition period in which nothing changes anyway (except that the bet pays out)?Barnesian said:
I don't think it is very much odds on, and clearly neither do most punters.AlastairMeeks said:Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).0 -
You know how the EU works. Nearly everything of importance happens at the last minute. Unfortunately, with ratification processes, if a deal isn't done until early 2019, it might be necessary to have a short extension to prevent a limbo period where Britain is neither a member of the EU, nor has it an A50 deal in place.Richard_Nabavi said:
Why would anyone want to go to all the trouble of trying to get 28 countries to agree unanimously to a few weeks' delay, especially since there's almost certainly going to be a two-year transition period in which nothing changes anyway (except that the bet pays out)?Barnesian said:
I don't think it is very much odds on, and clearly neither do most punters.AlastairMeeks said:Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).0 -
Our borrowing rates fell after the financial crisis even as our debt to gdp doubled. At present Japan can borrow money really cheaply despite having a very high debt to gdp ratio.david_herdson said:
Of course it makes a bloody difference. Firstly, the government wouldn't have borrowed anything like as much year-on-year if it had gone into the crisis with a structural balance rather than a structural deficit of £50-80bn pa. Secondly, markets will be more inclined to lend at low rates to countries with lower debt-to-GDP ratios. Thirdly, a national consensus of low debt makes a more attractive lender; Labour proved that there was no such consensus, therefore there was greater risk, therefore, higher rates were demanded. There's no need for counterfactuals on this; other countries offer all the evidence needed.rkrkrk said:
We were in a weak position because banking and finance is a large part of our economy and we had massive regulatory failures. Brown deserves his share of the blame for that - albeit I doubt that the Tories would have done much differently.DavidL said:
What I found most egregious about Brown was his fundamental dishonesty. The constant reanouncement of money already promised. The adding up of years of spending to produce higher figures. The manipulation of the government accounts. The destruction of our pension industry with hidden taxes. He was not the first and subsequent Chancellors have repeated some of his innovations to their discredit but he was not trustworthy.
But Brown not running a surplus post 2001 made no difference to our ability to borrow, and rates at which we can borrow have plummeted.
For a while uk borrowing rates were negative in real terms (indeed might be still). No one is worried about the uk repaying our debts and given the fact that we didn’t join the euro - no one should be worried either.
I’d be very wary about structural deficit estimates - they change hugely based on assumptions around productivity etc.
This article sets out a response to your other points better than I can. .https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/mediamacro-myth-3-2007-boom.html?m=1
0 -
Yeah, about a 10% chance, maybe less. The bet Alastair highlighted is the stand-out political bet in the entire market at the moment IMO. It's a classic example of odds distorted by wishful thinking. Long may that last!Barnesian said:
It could be pre-agreed by the 27 in the event that negotiations go to the wire with the prospect of a cliff edge exit on WTO rules which would be a lose-lose. It could also be required if the talks drag on and there are timing problems in getting the required ratifications. It is not a few weeks delay - it is eight weeks on a very tight schedule.Richard_Nabavi said:
Why would anyone want to go to all the trouble of trying to get 28 countries to agree unanimously to a few weeks' delay, especially since there's almost certainly going to be a two-year transition period in which nothing changes anyway (except that the bet pays out)?Barnesian said:
I don't think it is very much odds on, and clearly neither do most punters.AlastairMeeks said:Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).0 -
The tourist invasion sounds horrible; if I were them I'd impose a $50 a day tourist tax, and make being part of an English stag party a criminal offence.HHemmelig said:
Excellent post.Charles said:
There was a vast amount of misallocated capital to work through. We chose to do it slowly to moderate the human cost but the trade off is slower growth. Iceland chose another approach and it worked for them - but I don’t think we had the national consensus that you have made ripping the bandage off achievableJohn_M said:
As a contrarian Brexiteer, it's sad that we're happy with 1.8%. Compared to long term trend growth, it's still shit. We're ten years into our recovery and this is the best we can do?GIN1138 said:So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May, Hammond and Carney out and a PM/CotE/Governor of the Bank of England who can actually present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
From the perspective of bashing Remainers over the head with some of the ludicrous predictions of APOCALYPSE NOW that we saw during the campaign, yes, give yourself 10 billion Internet Points. From the point of view of wealth creation, I'm disappointed.
As someone who works a lot in Iceland, I should say that many Icelanders would have preferred the British softly softly approach but they wearily accept that it would have been impossible in their situation. Though their recovery has been impressive it has come at the cost of a tourist invasion so enormous that it seriously impacts quality of life for many.0 -
Boris still has fans in parliament, in the party and in the country. Boris on the backbenches is a danger to May (particularly because he'd be even more free to pick the time and subject of his interventions).Scott_P said:
So has Borisdavid_herdson said:If she'd waited on the reshuffle, Hammond has undermined his position
Hammond on the backbenches, by contrast, is just someone waiting for a peerage and directorships.0 -
Wishful thinking can occur on both sides.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, about a 10% chance, maybe less. The bet Alastair highlighted is the stand-out political bet in the entire market at the moment IMO. It's a classic example of odds distorted by wishful thinking. Long may that last!Barnesian said:
It could be pre-agreed by the 27 in the event that negotiations go to the wire with the prospect of a cliff edge exit on WTO rules which would be a lose-lose. It could also be required if the talks drag on and there are timing problems in getting the required ratifications. It is not a few weeks delay - it is eight weeks on a very tight schedule.Richard_Nabavi said:
Why would anyone want to go to all the trouble of trying to get 28 countries to agree unanimously to a few weeks' delay, especially since there's almost certainly going to be a two-year transition period in which nothing changes anyway (except that the bet pays out)?Barnesian said:
I don't think it is very much odds on, and clearly neither do most punters.AlastairMeeks said:Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).
EDIT There's nothing wrong with optimism so long as you don't get your hopes up.0 -
I may have got muddled but I thought it was sold to management and is now Actis Private Equity?Foxy said:
The CDC was started by Attlee in 1948, but Brown did indeed turn it into a private corporation, albeit with the government owning the shares. It is now a profit seeking entity, rather than development focussed, so not quite sure how that fits with your summary, indeed it has been criticised in development circles for excessive profiteering.Charles said:
The UK has history in ZimbabweMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Z, we should revive the concept of enlightened self-interest. Recent news reports stated that Zimbabwe has a lot of mineral wealth but can't exploit it because landowners lack the money to mine it.
We could front up the money. Zimbabwe gets tax revenue, locals get employment, the landowner makes a profit, and we make a profit too. It's good for them and it's good for us.
Why we don't do that is beyond me.
(But the Commonwealth Development Corporation used to exactly what you said until Brown decided making money from investing in emerging markets was unethical)
My Zambeef shares did well from a CDC investment though, so not all bad.0 -
Is @MaxPB, our man at Davos, going to be live-blogging the Trump rant?0
-
Brown moved bank regulation from experienced old hands at the Bank of England to a newly set up FSA who were weak, weak weak.SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
Bank regulation is now back with the Bank of England and we can sleep soundly in our beds once more.0 -
-
So, nothing has changed.Scott_P said:0 -
Our Brexit deal will be decided by who is in the room representing the Uk when it is one minuite to midnight. We need someone like Boris who the other side know is a bit crazy and could walk out if they don't cave in to his demands.david_herdson said:
You know how the EU works. Nearly everything of importance happens at the last minute. Unfortunately, with ratification processes, if a deal isn't done until early 2019, it might be necessary to have a short extension to prevent a limbo period where Britain is neither a member of the EU, nor has it an A50 deal in place.Richard_Nabavi said:
Why would anyone want to go to all the trouble of trying to get 28 countries to agree unanimously to a few weeks' delay, especially since there's almost certainly going to be a two-year transition period in which nothing changes anyway (except that the bet pays out)?Barnesian said:
I don't think it is very much odds on, and clearly neither do most punters.AlastairMeeks said:Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).0 -
Well, that's convinced merottenborough said:
So, nothing has changed.Scott_P said:
0 -
Boris in the cabinet is an incompetent wrecker who has no real interest in doing the job he is suppose to do. At least the other incompetents who May has appointed to senior government positions for internal Tory party dynamics only mainly respect collective responsibility.david_herdson said:
Boris still has fans in parliament, in the party and in the country. Boris on the backbenches is a danger to May (particularly because he'd be even more free to pick the time and subject of his interventions).Scott_P said:
So has Borisdavid_herdson said:If she'd waited on the reshuffle, Hammond has undermined his position
Hammond on the backbenches, by contrast, is just someone waiting for a peerage and directorships.
0 -
You’re right. Bank managements were awful. (I remember particularly Stan O’Neal at Merrill trying to persuade me than $1 trillion (yes that’s right) of exposure to US sub prime was not too much risk in one asset class)SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
And there was an overarching cultural issue that @Cyclefree is much more eloquent and informed about than I am.
But that doesn’t mean the people who f*cked up the regulatory system aren’t guilty as sin. They had a job, they didn’t do it and we all suffered.
They forgot the basic rule - that personal supervision and understanding of risk is what matters - as my grandfather wrote to the Guv’nor “I don’t want to fill in your forms. You don’t want to read my forms. Why don’t you come and have lunch instead?”0 -
It's clear that May doesn't like communicating with earthlings. Pity, I'd hoped the robot invasion would have worked out better.rottenborough said:
So, nothing has changed.Scott_P said:0 -
So you think that the banks were blameless, then.Richard_Nabavi said:
So you advocate no regulation at all, then.SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.0 -
I will have my 16 year old twins with me - they have a list of things to do as long as their arms including the postal museum (for the mini train), design museum, what was the Geology museum, the V&A and a repeat of the Barbican architectural tour.Charles said:
Only an option?!eek said:
I'm adding it as an option for Feb 12-14th when we are on a trip to London to see Hamilton amongst other items...Richard_Nabavi said:
Worth coming just for the house alone (although you won’t see it’s full glory the way the exhibition is set up)
Yes - -they do have a strange set of interests...0 -
-
It was even worse than that. He split it into three parts (the BoE, FCA and Treasury), with none of them responsible for overseeing the integrity of the whole banking system. It was unbelievably incompetent.David_Evershed said:
Brown moved bank regulation from experienced old hands at the Bank of England to a newly set up FSA who were weak, weak weak..SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.0 -
Betfair also has a separate market on exit date where you can get 4 on the 3 months following March 2019. So you can hedge that possibility if you like. Dyor - haven’t checked if rules for those markets are identical.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, about a 10% chance, maybe less. The bet Alastair highlighted is the stand-out political bet in the entire market at the moment IMO. It's a classic example of odds distorted by wishful thinking. Long may that last!Barnesian said:
It could be pre-agreed by the 27 in the event that negotiations go to the wire with the prospect of a cliff edge exit on WTO rules which would be a lose-lose. It could also be required if the talks drag on and there are timing problems in getting the required ratifications. It is not a few weeks delay - it is eight weeks on a very tight schedule.Richard_Nabavi said:
Why would anyone want to go to all the trouble of trying to get 28 countries to agree unanimously to a few weeks' delay, especially since there's almost certainly going to be a two-year transition period in which nothing changes anyway (except that the bet pays out)?Barnesian said:
I don't think it is very much odds on, and clearly neither do most punters.AlastairMeeks said:Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).0 -
One of the main problems with the FSA was *why* they were weak - why they were more interested in micro-regulating individual loans than assuring themselves (and others who needed to know) that the system was, for example, properly capitalised. I suspect that they were too responsive to the media and political issues of the day - which in turn might well have been in no small part down to a lack of roots, institutional self-confidence and respect from others.David_Evershed said:
Brown moved bank regulation from experienced old hands at the Bank of England to a newly set up FSA who were weak, weak weak.SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
Bank regulation is now back with the Bank of England and we can sleep soundly in our beds once more.0 -
The first two are politics which she is t great atScott_P said:
What would a bad job look like?Charles said:May is doing an ok job of managing a difficult situation.
Internecine Cabinet warfare via the front pages perhaps?
Unable to reshuffle underperforming ministers?
Diplomatic failures?
On the third she’s delivered an ok round 1. That matters more than what the media expostulates0 -
How about the Museum of London in the Barbican (my fav) or the Temple if Mithras in Broadgate?eek said:
I will have my 16 year old twins with me - they have a list of things to do as long as their arms including the postal museum (for the mini train), design museum, what was the Geology museum, the V&A and a repeat of the Barbican architectural tour.Charles said:
Only an option?!eek said:
I'm adding it as an option for Feb 12-14th when we are on a trip to London to see Hamilton amongst other items...Richard_Nabavi said:
Worth coming just for the house alone (although you won’t see it’s full glory the way the exhibition is set up)
Yes - -they do have a strange set of interests...0 -
Thanks. I've taken it.rkrkrk said:
Betfair also has a separate market on exit date where you can get 4 on the 3 months following March 2019. So you can hedge that possibility if you like. Dyor - haven’t checked if rules for those markets are identical.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, about a 10% chance, maybe less. The bet Alastair highlighted is the stand-out political bet in the entire market at the moment IMO. It's a classic example of odds distorted by wishful thinking. Long may that last!Barnesian said:
It could be pre-agreed by the 27 in the event that negotiations go to the wire with the prospect of a cliff edge exit on WTO rules which would be a lose-lose. It could also be required if the talks drag on and there are timing problems in getting the required ratifications. It is not a few weeks delay - it is eight weeks on a very tight schedule.Richard_Nabavi said:
Why would anyone want to go to all the trouble of trying to get 28 countries to agree unanimously to a few weeks' delay, especially since there's almost certainly going to be a two-year transition period in which nothing changes anyway (except that the bet pays out)?Barnesian said:
I don't think it is very much odds on, and clearly neither do most punters.AlastairMeeks said:Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).0 -
Meanwhile in Trumpton...
The Failing New York Times reported that Trump wanted to fire Mueller
Trump in Davos said that was Fake News
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/956850643532206080
Oh.0 -
No, I think the political responsibility for screwing up UK financial regulation lies squarely with James Gordon Brown (with a special mention for Ed Balls in a supporting role). Banks doing stupid things (which if regulation had been sensible wouldn't have happened, or at least wouldn't have been so damaging) is the responsibility of the directors of the banks. Not hard to understand, surely?SandyRentool said:
So you think that the banks were blameless, then.Richard_Nabavi said:
So you advocate no regulation at all, then.SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
What may be slightly harder to understand is that you can have a situation where individual banks make decisions which are reasonably prudent individually, but which add up to a systemic risk as a whole. That's why you need someone looking at the big picture, as the Bank of England used to do before Brown screwed things up. Fortunately Osborne corrected that glaring piece of Brownian idiocy.0 -
The great thing about paperwork and computers is that it allows blame to be shifted to either process or if that fails someone far more junior.Charles said:
You’re right. Bank managements were awful. (I remember particularly Stan O’Neal at Merrill trying to persuade me than $1 trillion (yes that’s right) of exposure to US sub prime was not too much risk in one asset class)SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
And there was an overarching cultural issue that @Cyclefree is much more eloquent and informed about than I am.
But that doesn’t mean the people who f*cked up the regulatory system aren’t guilty as sin. They had a job, they didn’t do it and we all suffered.
They forgot the basic rule - that personal supervision and understanding of risk is what matters - as my grandfather wrote to the Guv’nor “I don’t want to fill in your forms. You don’t want to read my forms. Why don’t you come and have lunch instead?”
As for Brown v May - except for not joining the Euro I believe history will show that virtually every decision he made was the wrong one. Heck, you could argue that his refusal to change our benefit system as freedom of movement started is the root cause of Brexit...0 -
Ominous...Scott_P said:0 -
@steve_hawkes: suggests there wasn't much of a reprimand https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/9568627602934865920
-
It's just the governments that have to sign off on this, right? If you had to get parliaments to ratify things then it would indeed be a huge pain in the arse but if it's just getting people who are already in the room to agree to an extension so they can all go to bed, where's the trouble?Richard_Nabavi said:
Why would anyone want to go to all the trouble of trying to get 28 countries to agree unanimously to a few weeks' delay, especially since there's almost certainly going to be a two-year transition period in which nothing changes anyway (except that the bet pays out)?Barnesian said:
I don't think it is very much odds on, and clearly neither do most punters.AlastairMeeks said:Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).0 -
I don't think we are going to reach a meeting of minds on this one.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, I think the political responsibility for screwing up UK financial regulation lies squarely with James Gordon Brown (with a special mention for Ed Balls in a supporting role). Banks doing stupid things (which if regulation had been sensible wouldn't have happened, or at least wouldn't have been so damaging) is the responsibility of the directors of the banks. Not hard to understand, surely?SandyRentool said:
So you think that the banks were blameless, then.Richard_Nabavi said:
So you advocate no regulation at all, then.SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
What may be slightly harder to understand is that you can have a situation where individual banks make decisions which are reasonably prudent individually, but which add up to a systemic risk as a whole. That's why you need someone looking at the big picture, as the Bank of England used to do before Brown screwed things up. Fortunately Osborne corrected that glaring piece of Brownian idiocy.0 -
The trouble is that someone amongst the 27 might want a quid pro quo or guarantee. Ireland, for example, or some country that no-one is taking any notice of at the moment.edmundintokyo said:
It's just the governments that have to sign off on this, right? If you had to get parliaments to ratify things then it would indeed be a huge pain in the arse but if it's just getting people who are already in the room to agree to an extension so they can all go to bed, where's the trouble?Richard_Nabavi said:
Why would anyone want to go to all the trouble of trying to get 28 countries to agree unanimously to a few weeks' delay, especially since there's almost certainly going to be a two-year transition period in which nothing changes anyway (except that the bet pays out)?Barnesian said:
I don't think it is very much odds on, and clearly neither do most punters.AlastairMeeks said:Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).0 -
The potential case for impeachment is strengthening:Scott_P said:Meanwhile in Trumpton...
The Failing New York Times reported that Trump wanted to fire Mueller
Trump in Davos said that was Fake News
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/956850643532206080
Oh.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/26/mueller-trump-obstruction-of-justice-russia-216532?lo=ap_a10 -
Ozzy is, as ever, 100% correct. This part is particularly telling:Scott_P said:
The question is this: is this the small-state Britain that the majority of the 17 million Brexit supporters, many in declining industrial towns and seaside communities and the like, voted for in 2016? Surely not.
They voted to be better shielded from the cold winds of globalisation, not to be more exposed to them.
They didn’t vote for fewer employment rights, smaller government and less welfare. They aren’t eager for a free-trade deal with China and the US, so that more Chinese steel can be sold here and big US corporates can bid for NHS contracts.
But the vote is done. There's nothing we Remainers can do to help them now. All they can hope is that the views of Rees-Mogg don't prevail and that Boris takes a softer line than his rhetoric currently suggests. Failing that, they're stuffed.0 -
The comments under this one were somewhat less than supportive:Foxy said:
Strange how British drug traffikers get tabloid support, but I suspect that she has learnt her lesson now.DecrepitJohnL said:
Huzzah for King Boris. Titan of the FO.Big_G_NorthWales said:Laura Plummer pardonned by Egyptian President
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5308383/Steward-jailed-smuggling-heroin-Dubai-UK.html0 -
Anyone know what happened to Osborne's book? Wasn't it meant to be published last year?0
-
The old B of E allowed Barings to fail and I think would've done no better in 2008 than the FSA. The 2008 crash was primarily a failure of senior management, many of whom did not understand the complexity of their own balance sheets and wilfully ignored the warnings of their risk management teams.David_Evershed said:
Brown moved bank regulation from experienced old hands at the Bank of England to a newly set up FSA who were weak, weak weak.SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
Bank regulation is now back with the Bank of England and we can sleep soundly in our beds once more.0 -
I'll definitely try and add the Temple of Mithras to the list but then I remember we also probably need to do the Crystal again for their GCSE Geography exams...Charles said:
How about the Museum of London in the Barbican (my fav) or the Temple if Mithras in Broadgate?eek said:
I will have my 16 year old twins with me - they have a list of things to do as long as their arms including the postal museum (for the mini train), design museum, what was the Geology museum, the V&A and a repeat of the Barbican architectural tour.Charles said:
Only an option?!eek said:
I'm adding it as an option for Feb 12-14th when we are on a trip to London to see Hamilton amongst other items...Richard_Nabavi said:
Worth coming just for the house alone (although you won’t see it’s full glory the way the exhibition is set up)
Yes - -they do have a strange set of interests...
Once again 3 days need to be about 2 weeks long.
0 -
There are fairly strong social pressures for things like this that are basically procedural and work in the service of everybody being able to avoid an immediate crisis and go to bed.Richard_Nabavi said:
The trouble is that someone amongst the 27 might want a quid pro quo or guarantee. Ireland, for example, or some country that no-one is taking any notice of at the moment.edmundintokyo said:
It's just the governments that have to sign off on this, right? If you had to get parliaments to ratify things then it would indeed be a huge pain in the arse but if it's just getting people who are already in the room to agree to an extension so they can all go to bed, where's the trouble?Richard_Nabavi said:
Why would anyone want to go to all the trouble of trying to get 28 countries to agree unanimously to a few weeks' delay, especially since there's almost certainly going to be a two-year transition period in which nothing changes anyway (except that the bet pays out)?Barnesian said:
I don't think it is very much odds on, and clearly neither do most punters.AlastairMeeks said:Your regular reminder that you can back Britain to leave the EU on Betfair by 29 March 2019 at odds of over 2.4. Of course it's not a certainty but it has to be very much odds on.
The key date is 26 May 2019 - the date of the next EU election of MEPs. It will be easy to slip the Brexit date back two months from 29 March to 26 May but beyond 26 May it will be more difficult (though not impossible).0 -
There now follows a party political broadcast by the Maybot.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/9568736960058408970 -
Iceland is a country larger in area than Scotland and Wales combined, and has a population about the size of Ealing Borough. I'm sure it would be possible to cordon off some Magaluf-in-the-ice 'tourist zone' enclave.Ishmael_Z said:
The tourist invasion sounds horrible; if I were them I'd impose a $50 a day tourist tax, and make being part of an English stag party a criminal offence.HHemmelig said:
Excellent post.Charles said:
There was a vast amount of misallocated capital to work through. We chose to do it slowly to moderate the human cost but the trade off is slower growth. Iceland chose another approach and it worked for them - but I don’t think we had the national consensus that you have made ripping the bandage off achievableJohn_M said:
As a contrarian Brexiteer, it's sad that we're happy with 1.8%. Compared to long term trend growth, it's still shit. We're ten years into our recovery and this is the best we can do?GIN1138 said:So inflation coming down, GDP going up. Unemployment/employment both looking amazing.
Everything is going "TREMENDOUSLY" from what I can see.
All we need is May, Hammond and Carney out and a PM/CotE/Governor of the Bank of England who can actually present all this good news to the public rather than looking like they are the chief mourners at the funeral of UKPLC...
From the perspective of bashing Remainers over the head with some of the ludicrous predictions of APOCALYPSE NOW that we saw during the campaign, yes, give yourself 10 billion Internet Points. From the point of view of wealth creation, I'm disappointed.
As someone who works a lot in Iceland, I should say that many Icelanders would have preferred the British softly softly approach but they wearily accept that it would have been impossible in their situation. Though their recovery has been impressive it has come at the cost of a tourist invasion so enormous that it seriously impacts quality of life for many.0 -
Presumably it's packed with so many shocking revelations that it would undermine Theresa's government even further. George wouldn't want that. Unlike sly and vindictive Leavers such as Boris, he wouldn't sabotage Theresa's standing during these crucial Brexit talks. The man is a patriot.Mortimer said:Anyone know what happened to Osborne's book? Wasn't it meant to be published last year?
0 -
Did someone mention the Soviet Union?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Tyson, are you suggesting the statistics gathered in the UK are effectively as trustworthy (ie not very) as those of the Soviet Union?
0 -
It was lost in a daze of coke-think Sherlock Holmes-and friendly,helpful escorts.Mortimer said:Anyone know what happened to Osborne's book? Wasn't it meant to be published last year?
0 -
Actually the Leave win they voted for followed by many of them voting for Corbyn and forcing a hung parliament ensures they are more likely to get what they do want ie an end to free movement and reduced immigration, restored sovereignty and an end to austerity and free trade deals that do not benefit British workersStark_Dawning said:
Ozzy is, as ever, 100% correct. This part is particularly telling:Scott_P said:
The question is this: is this the small-state Britain that the majority of the 17 million Brexit supporters, many in declining industrial towns and seaside communities and the like, voted for in 2016? Surely not.
They voted to be better shielded from the cold winds of globalisation, not to be more exposed to them.
They didn’t vote for fewer employment rights, smaller government and less welfare. They aren’t eager for a free-trade deal with China and the US, so that more Chinese steel can be sold here and big US corporates can bid for NHS contracts.
But the vote is done. There's nothing we Remainers can do to help them now. All they can hope is that the views of Rees-Mogg don't prevail and that Boris takes a softer line than his rhetoric currently suggests. Failing that, they're stuffed.0 -
Johnson Matthey, Barings, BCCI? The Bank of England rarely had a clue, especially if the bank's directors were also in the dark. The idea that Bank of England regulation was some golden age is laughable. That is without the non-banking financial scandals like Polly Peck or Maxwell.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, I think the political responsibility for screwing up UK financial regulation lies squarely with James Gordon Brown (with a special mention for Ed Balls in a supporting role). Banks doing stupid things (which if regulation had been sensible wouldn't have happened, or at least wouldn't have been so damaging) is the responsibility of the directors of the banks. Not hard to understand, surely?SandyRentool said:
So you think that the banks were blameless, then.Richard_Nabavi said:
So you advocate no regulation at all, then.SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
What may be slightly harder to understand is that you can have a situation where individual banks make decisions which are reasonably prudent individually, but which add up to a systemic risk as a whole. That's why you need someone looking at the big picture, as the Bank of England used to do before Brown screwed things up. Fortunately Osborne corrected that glaring piece of Brownian idiocy.
But it is all irrelevant to the global economic meltdown.0 -
Right on cue!HYUFD said:
Pureile or not Brown left the worst economic crisis since WW2 and his 'prudence left Britain ill prepared for any crash led Labour to its lowest share of the vote since 1983. Under May unemployment is lower than it has been for decades and she got the highest Tory voteshare since 1983 last June.
For a supposedly Tory voter the fact you prefer Brown to May and dislike both Boris and Mogg places you in a miniscule segment of current supporters of the party
What hell it must be for the wife and work colleagues of HYUFD. In any discussion, no matter how little you know about the subject in hand or how conclusively you have been proved wrong, you always insist on having the last word on it. Remember the discussion on President Carter's IQ? Such people do not tend to be very popular in life.
You also tend to totally misrepresent what people have said to make it possible for you to insert one of your standard soundbite responses. Nowhere did I say I personally preferred Brown to May; I said she will probably be remembered as a worse prime minister than him though obviously the jury is out as she hasn't left office yet and the verdict of history takes decades to settle.
Thirdly your tendency to tell Conservatives who disagree with you that they are part of an irrelevant tiny minority of the party is highly irritating.
Fourthly one of the reasons I find it impossible to take you seriously is your Damascene conversion from avid Remainer before the referendum to one of this site's Brexiters in chief now, endlessly attacking people for voting the same way as yourself. Talk about the zeal of the convert. There are many leavers on here who have opposed the EU for decades and defended their stance when it wasn't fashionable or popular; I don't personally agree with them but there's no questioning that Richard Tyndall, Sean Fear etc are highly principled people and I respect them for it. Of course your problem is also shared by PM May herself, as Heseltine pointed out not long ago, and I think it is the root cause of many of her problems. Brexit can't easily be implemented by those who at heart are convinced Remainers. Richard Navabi amongst others shows that it is possible to be a Remainer Tory who accepts the Leave vote without turning into a Brexit toady.0 -
Stark_Dawning said:
Ozzy is, as ever, 100% correct. This part is particularly telling:Scott_P said:
The question is this: is this the small-state Britain that the majority of the 17 million Brexit supporters, many in declining industrial towns and seaside communities and the like, voted for in 2016? Surely not.
They voted to be better shielded from the cold winds of globalisation, not to be more exposed to them.
They didn’t vote for fewer employment rights, smaller government and less welfare. They aren’t eager for a free-trade deal with China and the US, so that more Chinese steel can be sold here and big US corporates can bid for NHS contracts.
But the vote is done. There's nothing we Remainers can do to help them now. All they can hope is that the views of Rees-Mogg don't prevail and that Boris takes a softer line than his rhetoric currently suggests. Failing that, they're stuffed.
Globalisation will ultimately benefit people across the world. Wealth will be distributed evenly across countries, and within countries and nations will collectively take measures to reverse the worst effects of climate change.....but it's going to take altruistic, strategic, integrated policymaking along the way to get there. Brexit, Trump, Islamism, Russian tub thumping are diversions and have left the EU and China in extremely strong positions to extend their global reach. Look at Macron...France's standing in the world has risen dramatically. China...we kind of just have to hope for the best that they behave responsibly since we do not understand much about them.
Or we could subscribe to a Bannon outlook and see globalisation as driving the world full tilt into a fourth world war....so let's ignore climate change, think only of our nation's immediate short term interest and invest in the military....
0 -
Banks will always fail from time to time. You have completely missed the point, which is about prudential supervision - making sure that the banking system as a whole is sound and won't collapse when something like a bank failure happens. Between the collapse of Overend Gurney in 1866, and Brown's dismantling of prudent supervision in 1997, we had a system so resilient that there was not a single bank run nor any major knock-on effect on the wider economy from bank failures. That is despite several major world financial crises during that time, and despite individual failures such as BCCI.DecrepitJohnL said:Johnson Matthey, Barings, BCCI? The Bank of England rarely had a clue, especially if the bank's directors were also in the dark. The idea that Bank of England regulation was some golden age is laughable. That is without the non-banking financial scandals like Polly Peck or Maxwell.
But it is all irrelevant to the global economic meltdown.0 -
Rank definitely, but probably not in the way you intend.....Charles said:
Brown was a terrible Chancellor/PMHHemmelig said:
I well remember about 10 years ago there were multiple people on here loudly proclaiming BROWN IS THE MOST USELESS PM EVER....some of those people are still here, others like the late lamented Martin Day are long gone. But as a Tory voter it pains me to say that May makes Brown look like a political colossus in retrospect, and you are right that Boris or Mogg would be far worse still.tyson said:
Quite true. Poor Theresa. The only redeeming legacy factor on a Boris succession is that she'll at least default one place higher on British PM's....OK she'll still be one considered one of the worst and mostly pitied, not invited to parties, given any lucrative commissions, global positions with a bargain basement memoir soon to be offered free on Kindle and such like.....Stark_Dawning said:
Agreed. The poor woman is in an impossible situation. Boris will use a soft Brexit as the perfect excuse to oust her. Of course, once that's achieved he'll sign up to the same version of Brexit himself and will probably get away with it, but that will be scant consolation for Theresa, who'll be out on her ear and barely warranting a footnote in the annals of history.
But in that great pantheon of PM's she'll be able to piss on Boris's head in due course....although to have the likes of Gordon Brown and John Major well above her is not what she imagined this time last year...
*awaits inevitable puerile rebuttal from HYUFD comparing Brown and May's electoral performance*
But he was good at politics - he ate up the Labour Party to further his own agenda
May is doing an ok job of managing a difficult situation. But is terrible at politics.
For me she outranks Brown as a PM0 -
That’s irrelevant to my point(s).HYUFD said:
Britain is still on the G7, the G20, the Council of Europe and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. However the Brexit vote was not to try and become a global superpower again but to restore sovereignty and regain control of our bordersGardenwalker said:Britain just becomes geopolitically less important post Brexit.
Less important to France and Germany and other European countries as a weight inside the EU.
Less important to the US for the same reason - because less able to influence inside the US’s main rival for trade and financial rule setting.
Less important to China - no longer a voice inside their main export market.
And, to all nations, we are no longer a reliable and stable route into a wealthy market of 500 million people.
And frankly, with Brexit the only show in town, we’re less able to manage an active foreign (and seemingly domestic) policy.
Britain’s global power has of course been in decline for a 100 years. We gave up pretending to be a superpower after Suez, and the 60s and 70s were all about retrenchment.
Thatcher, then Blair, arrested and reversed our decline. We were powerful players in the end of the Cold War, in the establishment of the single market, in the end of apartheid, and in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, and Yugoslavia.
Then, downhill.
Iraq destroyed our credibility. The global financial crisis removed our means. But Brexit is the final nail in the coffin. It’s a retreat not just from a global role, but from a regional one.
I will continue to be surprised that the Brexiters - who tend to be Conservatives - and therefore traditionally proud and protective of Britain’s global power - are so sanguine about its rapid decline.
But that’s cognitive dissonance for you, I guess.
Brexit, all things being equal, renders Britain less influential. And this noticeable and remarked upon by opinion formers worldwide.
0 -
Some banks will always go bust. That is a feature, not a bug. The important thing is that those that do are relatively small and have probably engaged in dodgy practices that were hidden by criminal action (or inaction).DecrepitJohnL said:
Johnson Matthey, Barings, BCCI? The Bank of England rarely had a clue, especially if the bank's directors were also in the dark. The idea that Bank of England regulation was some golden age is laughable. That is without the non-banking financial scandals like Polly Peck or Maxwell.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, I think the political responsibility for screwing up UK financial regulation lies squarely with James Gordon Brown (with a special mention for Ed Balls in a supporting role). Banks doing stupid things (which if regulation had been sensible wouldn't have happened, or at least wouldn't have been so damaging) is the responsibility of the directors of the banks. Not hard to understand, surely?SandyRentool said:
So you think that the banks were blameless, then.Richard_Nabavi said:
So you advocate no regulation at all, then.SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
What may be slightly harder to understand is that you can have a situation where individual banks make decisions which are reasonably prudent individually, but which add up to a systemic risk as a whole. That's why you need someone looking at the big picture, as the Bank of England used to do before Brown screwed things up. Fortunately Osborne corrected that glaring piece of Brownian idiocy.
But it is all irrelevant to the global economic meltdown.
There is a balance to be struck and over-regulation poses serious risks to the industry just as under-regulation does (and both are in fact possible at the same time, if the wrong things are over-regulated.0 -
Leaving aside the personal insults from you which says more about you than me and I am not going to lower myself to respond to, the fact is you clearly asserted Brown would be remembered as a worse PM than May as irrefutable fact with no clear evidence to support it and the fact you are in a tiny minority of Tory voters (if indeed you do always vote Tory which I doubt) in your dislike of Brexit, Boris and Mogg and belief Brown was a better PM than May is an irrefutable fact whether you like it or not.HHemmelig said:
Right on cue!HYUFD said:
Pureile or not Brown left the worst economic crisis ent supporters of the party
What hell it must be for the wife and work colleagues of HYUFD. In any discussion, no matter how little you know about the subject in hand or how conclusively you have been proved wrong, you always insist on having the last word on it. Remember the discussion on President Carter's IQ? Such people do not tend to be very popular in life.
You also tend to totally misrepresent what people have said to make it possible for you to insert one of your standard soundbite responses. Nowhere did I say I personally preferred Brown to May; I said she will probably be remembered as a worse prime minister than him though obviously the jury is out as she hasn't left office yet and the verdict of history takes decades to settle.
Thirdly your tendency to tell Conservatives who disagree with you that they are part of an irrelevant tiny minority of the party is highly irritating.
Fourthly one of the reasons I find it impossible to take you seriously is your Damascene conversion from avid Remainer before the referendum to one of this site's Brexiters in chief now, endlessly attacking people for voting the same way as yourself. Talk about the zeal of the convert. There are many leavers on here who have opposed the EU for decades and defended their stance when it wasn't fashionable or popular; I don't personally agree with them but there's no questioning that Richard Tyndall, Sean Fear etc are highly principled people and I respect them for it. Of course your problem is also shared by PM May herself, as Heseltine pointed out not long ago, and I think it is the root cause of many of her problems. Brexit can't easily be implemented by those who at heart are convinced Remainers. Richard Navabi amongst others shows that it is possible to be a Remainer Tory who accepts the Leave vote without turning into a Brexit toady.
The fact what motivated working class Leavers especially to vote Leave was to reduce free movement and immigration has to be respected whether you or the small pro single market minority of Leavers like it or not0 -
The vote for Brexit was to regain sovereignty and end free movement and reduce immigration, in or out of the EU we would still be a medium sized nation and not a global superpowerGardenwalker said:
That’s irrelevant to my point(s).HYUFD said:
Britain is still on the G7, the G20, the Council of Europe and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. However the Brexit vote was not to try and become a global superpower again but to restore sovereignty and regain control of our bordersGardenwalker said:Britain just becomes geopolitically less important post Brexit.
Less important to France and Germany and other European countries as a weight inside the EU.
Less important to the US for the same reason - because less able to influence inside the US’s main rival for trade and financial rule setting.
Less important to China - no longer a voice inside their main export market.
And, to all nations, we are no longer a reliable and stable route into a wealthy market of 500 million people.
And frankly, with Brexit the only show in town, we’re less able to manage an active foreign (and seemingly domestic) policy.
Britain’s global power has of course been in decline for a 100 years. We gave up pretending to be a superpower after Suez, and the 60s and 70s were all about retrenchment.
Thatcher, then Blair, arrested and reversed our decline. We were powerful players in the end of the Cold War, in the establishment of the single market, in the end of apartheid, and in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, and Yugoslavia.
Then, downhill.
Iraq destroyed our credibility. The global financial crisis removed our means. But Brexit is the final nail in the coffin. It’s a retreat not just from a global role, but from a regional one.
I will continue to be surprised that the Brexiters - who tend to be Conservatives - and therefore traditionally proud and protective of Britain’s global power - are so sanguine about its rapid decline.
But that’s cognitive dissonance for you, I guess.
Brexit, all things being equal, renders Britain less influential. And this noticeable and remarked upon by opinion formers worldwide.0 -
@HHemmelig
As a Blairite, I can really sympathise with the plight of moderate Tories who are getting mercilessly flogged by their extreme elements. Like Labour, the sensible sounding lot, the Chuka's and Miliband elders of the world are despised much more by elements of their own party than they could ever be by their political opponents. I ventured yesterday that Hunt, a reasonable, balanced, moderate Tory in my view would be a good, sensible choice as leader.... but HYFUD was spitting feathers. You see Tories of that ilk see the moderates as the enemy.
I don't want to create a new party a la En Marche. I am Labour. Ken Clarke was asked something similar and said he still would join the Tory party of today. Why should we be forced out of parties that are our natural home because of the extremists?
I think it's just about holding tight and weathering the storm. Ultimately the extremists, Momentum, ideological Brexiters, Trumpers and their like..they are disrupters, nothing more. And at the centre of their ideology lies a narrow view of the world, filled mostly by hatred, hyperbole and a lack of rationality. They don't offer solutions....they mostly float in invective, generalisations and an unwavering narrative that is unchallengeable. That I guess is ideology in a nutshell for you, like religion, or blind faith...you just believe it and that's that really.0 -
Re the podcast-what's with this ageism thing? Picasso did his best work in his 80s and lived until 88.Can't see the problem.0
-
Different rules for artists, who can work as and when they please. But even then, how much great art - in any artform - has been produced by octogenarians and older?volcanopete said:Re the podcast-what's with this ageism thing? Picasso did his best work in his 80s and lived until 88.Can't see the problem.
I'm happy to live by the maxim that if you're good enough, you're old (or young) enough - but the demands of office are greater now than ever, particularly in a parliamentary democracy (presidents don't need to lead parliament as well as the government).0 -
If you read my original post I stated that Britain gave up pretension to global superpower status after Suez. Nowhere do I claim that the staying in the EU perpetuates or restores that status.HYUFD said:
The vote for Brexit was to regain sovereignty and end free movement and reduce immigration, in or out of the EU we would still be a medium sized nation and not a global superpowerGardenwalker said:
That’s irrelevant to my point(s).HYUFD said:
Britain is still on the G7, the G20, the Council of Europe and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. However the Brexit vote was not to try and become a global superpower again but to restore sovereignty and regain control of our bordersGardenwalker said:Britain just becomes geopolitically less important post Brexit.
Less important to France and Germany and other European countries as a weight inside the EU.
Less important to the US for the same reason - because less able to influence inside the US’s main rival for trade and financial rule setting.
Less important to China - no longer a voice inside their main export market.
And, to all nations, we are no longer a reliable and stable route into a wealthy market of 500 million people.
And frankly, with Brexit the only show in town, we’re less able to manage an active foreign (and seemingly domestic) policy.
Britain’s global power has of course been in decline for a 100 years. We gave up pretending to be a superpower after Suez, and the 60s and 70s were all about retrenchment.
Thatcher, then Blair, arrested and reversed our decline. We were powerful players in the end of the Cold War, in the establishment of the single market, in the end of apartheid, and in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, and Yugoslavia.
Then, downhill.
Iraq destroyed our credibility. The global financial crisis removed our means. But Brexit is the final nail in the coffin. It’s a retreat not just from a global role, but from a regional one.
I will continue to be surprised that the Brexiters - who tend to be Conservatives - and therefore traditionally proud and protective of Britain’s global power - are so sanguine about its rapid decline.
But that’s cognitive dissonance for you, I guess.
Brexit, all things being equal, renders Britain less influential. And this noticeable and remarked upon by opinion formers worldwide.
But like others, I have come to the conclusion that you are either a bot. Certainly, you fail the Turing test.
0 -
If the only way to be a global superpower is to join the Eurozone and a Federal EU we would cease to be a sovereign and independent nation anywayGardenwalker said:
If you read my original post I stated that Britain gave up pretension to global superpower status after Suez. Nowhere do I claim that the staying in the EU perpetuates or restores that status.HYUFD said:
The vote for Brexit was to regain sovereignty and end free movement and reduce immigration, in or out of the EU we would still be a medium sized nation and not a global superpowerGardenwalker said:
That’s irrelevant to my point(s).HYUFD said:
Britain is still on the G7, the G20, the Council of Europe and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. However the Brexit vote was not to try and become a global superpower again but to restore sovereignty and regain control of our bordersGardenwalker said:Britain just becomes geopolitically less important post Brexit.
Less important to France and Germany and other European countries as a weight inside the EU.
Less important to the US for the same reason - because less able to influence inside the US’s main rival for trade and financial rule setting.
Less important to China - no longer a voice inside their main export market.
And, to all nations, we are no longer a reliable and stable route into a wealthy market of 500 million people.
And frankly, with Brexit the only show in town, we’re less able to manage an active foreign (and seemingly domestic) policy.
Britain’s global power has of course been in decline for a 100 years. We gave up pretending to be a superpower after Suez, and the 60s and 70s were all about retrenchment.
Thatcher, then Blair, arrested and reversed our decline. We were powerful players in the end of the Cold War, in the establishment of the single market, in the end of apartheid, and in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, and Yugoslavia.
Then, downhill.
Iraq destroyed our credibility. The global financial crisis removed our means. But Brexit is the final nail in the coffin. It’s a retreat not just from a global role, but from a regional one.
I will continue to be surprised that the Brexiters - who tend to be Conservatives - and therefore traditionally proud and protective of Britain’s global power - are so sanguine about its rapid decline.
But that’s cognitive dissonance for you, I guess.
Brexit, all things being equal, renders Britain less influential. And this noticeable and remarked upon by opinion formers worldwide.
But like others, I have come to the conclusion that you are either a bot. Certainly, you fail the Turing test.0 -
Barings failing was the right decision. Peter took his eye off the ball and the family didn't know what was going on.calum said:
The old B of E allowed Barings to fail and I think would've done no better in 2008 than the FSA. The 2008 crash was primarily a failure of senior management, many of whom did not understand the complexity of their own balance sheets and wilfully ignored the warnings of their risk management teams.David_Evershed said:
Brown moved bank regulation from experienced old hands at the Bank of England to a newly set up FSA who were weak, weak weak.SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
Bank regulation is now back with the Bank of England and we can sleep soundly in our beds once more.
And there was no systemic impact0 -
Richard Strauss!david_herdson said:
Different rules for artists, who can work as and when they please. But even then, how much great art - in any artform - has been produced by octogenarians and older?
0 -
Granted, he did some very good stuff in his last years. But as with Picasso, it's a rare exception.edb said:
Richard Strauss!david_herdson said:
Different rules for artists, who can work as and when they please. But even then, how much great art - in any artform - has been produced by octogenarians and older?0 -
That depends on what you mean by 'we'.HYUFD said:
If the only way to be a global superpower is to join the Eurozone and a Federal EU we would cease to be a sovereign and independent nation anywayGardenwalker said:
If you read my original post I stated that Britain gave up pretension to global superpower status after Suez. Nowhere do I claim that the staying in the EU perpetuates or restores that status.HYUFD said:
The vote for Brexit was to regain sovereignty and end free movement and reduce immigration, in or out of the EU we would still be a medium sized nation and not a global superpowerGardenwalker said:
That’s irrelevant to my point(s).HYUFD said:
Britain is still on the G7, the G20, the Council of Europe and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. However the Brexit vote was not to try and become a global superpower again but to restore sovereignty and regain control of our bordersGardenwalker said:Britain just becomes geopolitically less important post Brexit.
Less important to France and Germany and other European countries as a weight inside the EU.
Less important to the US for the same reason - because less able to influence inside the US’s main rival for trade and financial rule setting.
Less important to China - no longer a voice inside their main export market.
And, to all nations, we are no longer a reliable and stable route into a wealthy market of 500 million people.
And frankly, with Brexit the only show in town, we’re less able to manage an active foreign (and seemingly domestic) policy.
Britain’s global power has of course been in decline for a 100 years. We gave up pretending to be a superpower after Suez, and the 60s and 70s were all about retrenchment.
Thatcher, then Blair, arrested and reversed our decline. We were powerful players in the end of the Cold War, in the establishment of the single market, in the end of apartheid, and in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, and Yugoslavia.
Then, downhill.
Iraq destroyed our credibility. The global financial crisis removed our means. But Brexit is the final nail in the coffin. It’s a retreat not just from a global role, but from a regional one.
I will continue to be surprised that the Brexiters - who tend to be Conservatives - and therefore traditionally proud and protective of Britain’s global power - are so sanguine about its rapid decline.
But that’s cognitive dissonance for you, I guess.
Brexit, all things being equal, renders Britain less influential. And this noticeable and remarked upon by opinion formers worldwide.
But like others, I have come to the conclusion that you are either a bot. Certainly, you fail the Turing test.0 -
I believe that was a subsidary, sold as a management buyout.Charles said:
I may have got muddled but I thought it was sold to management and is now Actis Private Equity?Foxy said:
The CDC was started by Attlee in 1948, but Brown did indeed turn it into a private corporation, albeit with the government owning the shares. It is now a profit seeking entity, rather than development focussed, so not quite sure how that fits with your summary, indeed it has been criticised in development circles for excessive profiteering.Charles said:
The UK has history in ZimbabweMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Z, we should revive the concept of enlightened self-interest. Recent news reports stated that Zimbabwe has a lot of mineral wealth but can't exploit it because landowners lack the money to mine it.
We could front up the money. Zimbabwe gets tax revenue, locals get employment, the landowner makes a profit, and we make a profit too. It's good for them and it's good for us.
Why we don't do that is beyond me.
(But the Commonwealth Development Corporation used to exactly what you said until Brown decided making money from investing in emerging markets was unethical)
My Zambeef shares did well from a CDC investment though, so not all bad.0 -
B of E up to their necks in the failure - as well as Peter & CoCharles said:
Barings failing was the right decision. Peter took his eye off the ball and the family didn't know what was going on.calum said:
The old B of E allowed Barings to fail and I think would've done no better in 2008 than the FSA. The 2008 crash was primarily a failure of senior management, many of whom did not understand the complexity of their own balance sheets and wilfully ignored the warnings of their risk management teams.David_Evershed said:
Brown moved bank regulation from experienced old hands at the Bank of England to a newly set up FSA who were weak, weak weak.SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
Bank regulation is now back with the Bank of England and we can sleep soundly in our beds once more.
And there was no systemic impact
" The official Bank of England report said Nick Leeson, the Singapore-based futures trader, ran up losses totalling pounds 827m which he covered up in secret accounts and false accounting. He was allowed to do so by Christopher Thompson, a senior Bank of England official who gave Barings a special waiver to fund hundreds of millions of share deals in the Far East and who resigned last week. "0 -
The examples you quote were not systemic risk,DecrepitJohnL said:
Johnson Matthey, Barings, BCCI? The Bank of England rarely had a clue, especially if the bank's directors were also in the dark. The idea that Bank of England regulation was some golden age is laughable. That is without the non-banking financial scandals like Polly Peck or Maxwell.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, I think the political responsibility for screwing up UK financial regulation lies squarely with James Gordon Brown (with a special mention for Ed Balls in a supporting role). Banks doing stupid things (which if regulation had been sensible wouldn't have happened, or at least wouldn't have been so damaging) is the responsibility of the directors of the banks. Not hard to understand, surely?SandyRentool said:
So you think that the banks were blameless, then.Richard_Nabavi said:
So you advocate no regulation at all, then.SandyRentool said:I have just poked myself in the eye with a pencil because Gordon Brown's regulatory regime does not prevent me from doing so.
Honestly, blaming the lack of regulation as being responsible for some of the world's largest banks doing stupid things is nonsense. The blame rests with the banks and their bosses.
What may be slightly harder to understand is that you can have a situation where individual banks make decisions which are reasonably prudent individually, but which add up to a systemic risk as a whole. That's why you need someone looking at the big picture, as the Bank of England used to do before Brown screwed things up. Fortunately Osborne corrected that glaring piece of Brownian idiocy.
But it is all irrelevant to the global economic meltdown.
Leading up to the crash in 2007/8 all the large banks were lending too much; at interest rates which were too low; with too little security. The FSA took no action.0 -
I just came back to London!Richard_Nabavi said:Is @MaxPB, our man at Davos, going to be live-blogging the Trump rant?
0 -
I freely admit to being against politicians wasting British lives and money so that they can posture around the world.Gardenwalker said:
@another_richard for a start.CarlottaVance said:
Names?Gardenwalker said:
Many on this board welcome that.another_richard said:
So does that mean that British lives and money no longer need to be wasted on foreign wars ?Gardenwalker said:Britain just becomes geopolitically less important post Brexit.
Less important to France and Germany and other European countries as a weight inside the EU.
Less important to the US for the same reason - because less able to influence inside the US’s main rival for trade and financial rule setting.
Less important to China - no longer a voice inside their main export market.
And, to all nations, we are no longer a reliable and stable route into a wealthy market of 500 million people.
And frankly, with Brexit the only show in town, we’re less able to manage an active foreign (and seemingly domestic) policy.
Britain’s global power has of course been in decline for a 100 years. We gave up pretending to be a superpower after Suez, and the 60s and 70s were all about retrenchment.
Thatcher, then Blair, arrested and reversed our decline. We were powerful players in the end of the Cold War, in the establishment of the single market, in the end of apartheid, and in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, and Yugoslavia.
Then, downhill.
Iraq destroyed our credibility. The global financial crisis removed our means. But Brexit is the final nail in the coffin. It’s a retreat not just from a global role, but from a regional one.
I will continue to be surprised that the Brexiters - who tend to be Conservatives - and therefore traditionally proud and protective of Britain’s global power - are so sanguine about its rapid decline.
But that’s cognitive dissonance for you, I guess.
And I guess that means we no longer need to be an 'Aid Superpower' and so can save ourselves another ten billion a year.
You really shouldn't believe what Remainers write about Brexiters......
But that's not the same as being against British influence in the world.
And I suspect that can best be achieved through the use of British culture (past, present and future) and British universities. I'm sure other PBers could add more such things.0 -
Cool. And there is a lot of soft power in our education system and cultural industries. It’s just that it doesn’t replace the economic and trade influence we lose by Brexiting.another_richard said:
I freely admit to being against politicians wasting British lives and money so that they can posture around the world.Gardenwalker said:
@another_richard for a start.CarlottaVance said:
Names?Gardenwalker said:
Many on this board welcome that.another_richard said:
So does that mean that British lives and money no longer need to be wasted on foreign wars ?Gardenwalker said:Britain just becomes geopolitically less important post Brexit.
ine.
But that’s cognitive dissonance for you, I guess.
And I guess that means we no longer need to be an 'Aid Superpower' and so can save ourselves another ten billion a year.
You really shouldn't believe what Remainers write about Brexiters......
But that's not the same as being against British influence in the world.
And I suspect that can best be achieved through the use of British culture (past, present and future) and British universities. I'm sure other PBers could add more such things.
Oh, and Brexit also threatens both the success of our universities and our cultural sector. The first relies on increasing numbers of foreign students, and the second is supercharged by, especially, the position London developed as Europe’s de facto capital of culture.0
