"Iran has eliminated its entire stock of enriched uranium ... Tehran also refrained from enriching above the five-percent level at any of its nuclear facilities, the IAEA report said.
From the Telegraph. Possibly the most important item of news today. Certainly far more important then whether Miliband managed to get a cringeworthy five minutes in Washington or whatever old flannel Cameron came up with in the Commons.
"Iran has eliminated its entire stock of enriched uranium ... Tehran also refrained from enriching above the five-percent level at any of its nuclear facilities, the IAEA report said.
From the Telegraph. Possibly the most important item of news today. Certainly far more important then whether Miliband managed to get a cringeworthy five minutes in Washington or whatever old flannel Cameron came up with in the Commons.
I thought it was a low down dirty trick trying to rebrand yourself as Isam. I read it wrong and thought it was Islam. Impersonating an entire religion. Downright disgraceful behaviour.
I noticed that it resembled Islam, not deliberate.
While we are on the subject, I think it is an interesting paradox that left wingers won't hear a word said against Islam despite Muslims being very intolerant of many lefty favourites(equality for women and gays etc) while right wingers seem to have it in for Muslims despite them sharing many old fashioned values that they want to preserve ( marriage, discipline in schools)
We're all a bit different on this and it doesn't divide that tidily. I'm sceptical of religion, and the more dogmatic the religion the more sceptical I am. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to portray all followers of any particular religion as having common characteristics, and think that a bad habit more common on the right, because it's a habit that carries over from national stereotyping. But I feel very much at home with conservatives who say we should treat people as individuals without generalising (I'm also critical of far-left types who categorise all posh people or all businessmen as enemies).
I have good friends who are charismatic Christians (speaking in tongues and all that) and devout Muslims. I think some of their beliefs are strange and they think my absence of belief is sad (one of the Christians says he feels it's a shame I'll probably go to hell, and he hopes he can yet save me). But primarily they're just nice people and I dislike anyone making assumptions about them.
The problem with that nick, is the reason you think that way is because you are left wing and not religious. Strictly religious people do see things in terms of division between right and wrong, that's where the paradox lies; the empathy, if it exists, which I doubt, is one sided
Rather depressing walking past the newsstands in full 'Putin is going to eat your baby' mode. One does hope that people will adopt the same healthy cynicism that helped us avoid bombing Syria, but I feel that the media hatchet job on Putin has been too thorough and extreme. Also worth noting the utter demonisation and dehumanisation of the rebels. Grotesque distortion on an unprecedented scale.
Then the British press tell us the Russians are being fed propoganda.
Not like the press in the West over Iraq of course
The hypocrisy and opportunism of the West and of the US in particular over the shooting down is predictable and depressing. Apparently this incident is proof of the ultimate evil of Russia and its elevation to a pariah state. And yet when the US (not even US backed rebels but the US military itself) shot down a civilian airliner and killed almost as many people it was a terrible wartime accident - even though the US was not at war with Iran - and one for which they have never admitted legal liability. Indeed they gave those responsible medals
We're all a bit different on this and it doesn't divide that tidily. I'm sceptical of religion, and the more dogmatic the religion the more sceptical I am. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to portray all followers of any particular religion as having common characteristics, and think that a bad habit more common on the right, because it's a habit that carries over from national stereotyping.
Religion, like nationalism, and unlike nationality, is an ideology which is chosen by the adherent. There is almost always very limited evidence to justify national stereotypes. On the other hand, it is perfectly legitimate to point out that adherents to a particular ideology do share common beliefs, and may be prepared to act on them. The only ground for limiting generalisations about followers of a given sect is the complexity of, and variation within the ideology in question. But that is as true for Marxism as it is for Protestantism, Sunni Islam or Shia heresy.
Shouldn't the UKIP colour be a sort of greyish-beige?
It will soon be blue as it replaces the pale lilac immitation that is the current Tory party
Thanks to UKIP, everything will soon be Euro-blue with gold stars on it. Exit not an option....
Exit is certainly not an option with the current blues. And if Labour win the next election it will be no ones fault but the Tories. Trying to blame others for their own failings is just another way the Tories are managing to lose public support.
Shouldn't the UKIP colour be a sort of greyish-beige?
It will soon be blue as it replaces the pale lilac immitation that is the current Tory party
Thanks to UKIP, everything will soon be Euro-blue with gold stars on it. Exit not an option....
Telling someone that the best way to get something they want is to vote for a party committed to the opposite may not be the easiest sell in the world.
Will the Greens wake up and decide that they have to field many more candidates at the GE if they really want to become more influential? Last time 330.
I can't help feeling that Lord Ashcroft winces a little and gets a terrible sinking feeling every time he gets these results handed to him, presumably on a silver salver by a man in white gloves.
why the snide "presumably..." addition?
I've never met Ashcroft, but the people I know at the IWM rate him and the public perception is of a down-to-earth (if a little thin-skinned) businessman
Exit is certainly not an option with the current blues. And if Labour win the next election it will be no ones fault but the Tories. Trying to blame others for their own failings is just another way the Tories are managing to lose public support.
It may only be 2014, but UKIP look nailed-on to win the prize for the Most Bone-headed Political Party of the Twenty First Century. (That they eclipse the Tea Party is saying something...)
Political analysts of the coming decades will shake their heads and mumble "what the HELL did they think they were achieving?"
Oh, and everything that a Labour Govt. does? It will be laid at UKIP's door. For all time.
Sorry, old chap, quoting Wikki doesn't answer the question. I know about the big bang, I was alive and sentient at the time. The question I asked was specifically what measure(s) of Thatchers administration brought about the banking crisis nearly twenty years later. Your saying there was such, I am saying really, which. Once we have established that we can move on to what Brown did about it and the effect of his revised supervisory structure.
Any joy on when Regan repealed the Glass-Stegall Act, by the way?
Am I missing something here? I'll try again, the specific measures would be those enacted by Thatcher's Government in 1986 which ushered in the so-called "Big Bang" . I never mentioned Glass-Segall so I am not sure why you are getting on your high horse about who repealed it, I am well aware of when it was repealed. Initially I was responding to Richard Nabavi's assertion that Brown was wholly responsible for the 2008 crisis. I am simply agreeing with Nigel Lawson's view that the financial crisis was largely a consequence (all be it unintended) of Thatcher's "Big Bang" and it ultimately caused the US banks to follow suit.
I can't help feeling that Lord Ashcroft winces a little and gets a terrible sinking feeling every time he gets these results handed to him, presumably on a silver salver by a man in white gloves.
SO: I responded to your comment to me on the previous thread there. Did not want you to think I had ignored you.
'He's right that it's normal for people to like their children. It isn't quite so normal to have a property portfolio of £4.5m and a reported annual household income of about £340,000. It might be normal for the fortysomething former special advisers who now seem to run the country, but if you're going to slag off "millionaires in the cabinet" it's probably a good idea not to be one yourself. It certainly isn't normal to go on and on about a "cost of living crisis" and then not know the cost of your weekly shop.'
Whoever Cameron listens to is not in touch with traditional tories, I honestly wonder who he is trying to appeal to. In reaching out to his perceived wider audience he's alienating his core. Great news for us lot
Ukip voters seem to be motivated by a hatred of spin and PC, so why Cameron thought transparent promotion on the basis of gender to fill a quota was going to move things in his favour is puzzling.
I would have thought Gove was popular with kippers too. Any polling on that?
I'd imagine (haven't asked him) that it was the Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary/ECHR moves on the law officers that were designed to appeal to UKIP. The promotion of some of the women who have served the last few years in more junior roles was probably about making Cabinet more broadly representative of the country
Exit is certainly not an option with the current blues. And if Labour win the next election it will be no ones fault but the Tories. Trying to blame others for their own failings is just another way the Tories are managing to lose public support.
It may only be 2014, but UKIP look nailed-on to win the prize for the Most Bone-headed Political Party of the Twenty First Century. (That they eclipse the Tea Party is saying something...)
Political analysts of the coming decades will shake their heads and mumble "what the HELL did they think they were achieving?"
Oh, and everything that a Labour Govt. does? It will be laid at UKIP's door. For all time.
Sorry old chap but for boneheadedness I am afraid no one touches the Tories. The ability to be on the wrong side of the argument and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is unrivaled in recent times. If and when they lose they will have no one to blame but themselves.
@taffys 'BTW How's the 'brush-by' going? Surely Washington would be keen to court what labour posters think is the British Prime Minister in waiting?' A brush off ?
He should be more bold and ask Obama for a brush up. :-)
Shouldn't the UKIP colour be a sort of greyish-beige?
It will soon be blue as it replaces the pale lilac immitation that is the current Tory party
Thanks to UKIP, everything will soon be Euro-blue with gold stars on it. Exit not an option....
Accept responsibility and stop blaming others, it is a childish trait.
The one area I thought the Tories were doing particularly well was education, one reason I support UKIP is I want a return to grammar schools, however Gove was doing a fantastic job in taking on the teaching unions and the lefty elite that has dragged our education system towards third world levels.
So what does Cameron do? Lose his nerve and sack him. Pathetic.
So Griffin no longer Glorious Leader - but he is still El Presidente....
Perhaps he'll apply to join UKIP
And of course wouldn't be allowed to due to previous membership of the BNP. Of course that is not the case for the Tory and Labour parties both of which have no rules to bar former BNP members. I think he would fit in quite well with some elements of the Labour party.
Sorry, old chap, quoting Wikki doesn't answer the question. I know about the big bang, I was alive and sentient at the time. The question I asked was specifically what measure(s) of Thatchers administration brought about the banking crisis nearly twenty years later. Your saying there was such, I am saying really, which. Once we have established that we can move on to what Brown did about it and the effect of his revised supervisory structure.
Any joy on when Regan repealed the Glass-Stegall Act, by the way?
Am I missing something here? I'll try again, the specific measures would be those enacted by Thatcher's Government in 1986 which ushered in the so-called "Big Bang" . I never mentioned Glass-Segall so I am not sure why you are getting on your high horse about who repealed it, I am well aware of when it was repealed. Initially I was responding to Richard Nabavi's assertion that Brown was wholly responsible for the 2008 crisis. I am simply agreeing with Nigel Lawson's view that the financial crisis was largely a consequence (all be it unintended) of Thatcher's "Big Bang" and it ultimately caused the US banks to follow suit.
You said we could profitably look at the de-regulation by Thatcher/Regan for the seeds of the banking crash of 2007. Fair go, I just wanted to know what measures you were talking about. So far you haven't been able to tell me, just a quote on Wikki and a reference to the Big Bang. I thought you might know something that I didn't. Seems you didn't. OK, I am comfortable with that.
Oh dear, looks like Cameron's reshuffle designed to see off UKIP has backfired.
It does look that way doesn't it? I thought the reshuffle would be more likely to drive Conservative voters away than attract back those who already had gone (see Charles Moore's article in the Telegraph for reasons), but as Mr OllyT said on the last thread Cameron doesn't have a principle that can't be shifted by a focus group or, perhaps, an opinion poll.
So MoE and all that accepted I am not in the least surprised that the Conservative figure is down to 27%. It probably ain't that low in reality, maybe 30%. However, Cameron still has another nine months and there are still some groups of voters he hasn't yet gone out of his way to piss off. He will get there.
Continuing the discussion from the last thread, "Big Bang" was Thatcher's cornerstone financial policy.
Quoting from Wiki:
"Although the "Big Bang" eased stock market transactions there is a debate in the UK about how far it affected the 2007–2012 global financial crisis. In 2010, Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor at the time, appeared on the Analysis program to discuss banking reform, explaining that the 2007–2012 global financial crisis was an unintended consequence of the "Big Bang". He said that UK investment banks, previously very cautious with what was their own money, had merged with high street banks putting depositors' savings at risk and ...according to the program leading US banks to follow suit".
I guess if anyone should know, Lawson is the man. Far more significant than anything Brown did, though his actions hardly improved matters.
Nah, that was capital controls and reducing taxation from the penal rates
Big Bang was part of her general policy of taking on vested interests wherever she found them
I can't help feeling that Lord Ashcroft winces a little and gets a terrible sinking feeling every time he gets these results handed to him, presumably on a silver salver by a man in white gloves.
SO: I responded to your comment to me on the previous thread there. Did not want you to think I had ignored you.
Exit is certainly not an option with the current blues. And if Labour win the next election it will be no ones fault but the Tories. Trying to blame others for their own failings is just another way the Tories are managing to lose public support.
It may only be 2014, but UKIP look nailed-on to win the prize for the Most Bone-headed Political Party of the Twenty First Century. (That they eclipse the Tea Party is saying something...)
Political analysts of the coming decades will shake their heads and mumble "what the HELL did they think they were achieving?"
Oh, and everything that a Labour Govt. does? It will be laid at UKIP's door. For all time.
Yes, perhaps Ed Miliband will offer Nigel a knighthood?
I can't help feeling that Lord Ashcroft winces a little and gets a terrible sinking feeling every time he gets these results handed to him, presumably on a silver salver by a man in white gloves.
why the snide "presumably..." addition?
I've never met Ashcroft, but the people I know at the IWM rate him and the public perception is of a down-to-earth (if a little thin-skinned) businessman
It was a joke Charles. Don't be so sensitive. I don't really think that Lord Ashcroft has the results presented to him on a silver salver by a man wearing white gloves. I was just seeking - obviously very badly - to create a mildly amusing image.
"Iran has eliminated its entire stock of enriched uranium ... Tehran also refrained from enriching above the five-percent level at any of its nuclear facilities, the IAEA report said.
From the Telegraph. Possibly the most important item of news today. Certainly far more important then whether Miliband managed to get a cringeworthy five minutes in Washington or whatever old flannel Cameron came up with in the Commons.
If that is true it is a triumph for Obama.
Nah: it COULD be a triumph for Obama
Depends on whether Iran sticks to the agreement and what Obama gave up in return.
Sorry, old chap, quoting Wikki doesn't answer the question. I know about the big bang, I was alive and sentient at the time. The question I asked was specifically what measure(s) of Thatchers administration brought about the banking crisis nearly twenty years later. Your saying there was such, I am saying really, which. Once we have established that we can move on to what Brown did about it and the effect of his revised supervisory structure.
Any joy on when Regan repealed the Glass-Stegall Act, by the way?
"Am I missing something here? I'll try again, the specific measures would be those enacted by Thatcher's Government in 1986 which ushered in the so-called "Big Bang" . I never mentioned Glass-Segall so I am not sure why you are getting on your high horse about who repealed it, I am well aware of when it was repealed. Initially I was responding to Richard Nabavi's assertion that Brown was wholly responsible for the 2008 crisis. I am simply agreeing with Nigel Lawson's view that the financial crisis was largely a consequence (all be it unintended) of Thatcher's "Big Bang" and it ultimately caused the US banks to follow suit. "
Responding to the comments above: -
The specific measures which led to Big Bang were the ones lifting the restrictive practices which had been in place e.g. the need to have separation between jobbers and brokers. Those steps did not cause the financial crisis. What they did do is lay the foundations for the development of a financial industry which, over time and as a result of other measures, became too big, too able to use very large balance sheets (consisting of assets held on behalf of retail customers - and this is where the repeal of Glass-Steagall is highly relevant) to trade on its own behalf for its (and our) good coupled with some very inept regulation, for which Brown's decisions were responsible.
I don't think you can hold either one person (Brown) or one government responsible for the financial crisis. There were a combination of factors which led to it. One of those factors was the change to the City as a result of Big Bang but it is trite and untrue to say, as some do, that the financial crisis was caused by Thatcher. Equally, where Brown was culpable was in not strengthening but rather weakening such regulation as there was and in relying so much on the revenues from the City that he was either unwilling or unable to regulate effectively. That meant that the problems became big problems so that when the bust came it was almost too large for governments to deal with - and we are still dealing with the consequences today and will be for some time to come.
Shouldn't the UKIP colour be a sort of greyish-beige?
It will soon be blue as it replaces the pale lilac immitation that is the current Tory party
Thanks to UKIP, everything will soon be Euro-blue with gold stars on it. Exit not an option....
Telling someone that the best way to get something they want is to vote for a party committed to the opposite may not be the easiest sell in the world.
UKIP are looking like a classic example of cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I have a vague memory that the Tories used that poster in the past (Scottish devolution maybe?) but couldn't find it with a quick google
These are poor numbers for all 3 main parties, Labour only 1% up on Kinnock's '92 total, the Tories below '97 and the LDs level with the Greens in 1 and only just ahead of them in another
I thought it was a low down dirty trick trying to rebrand yourself as Isam. I read it wrong and thought it was Islam. Impersonating an entire religion. Downright disgraceful behaviour.
I noticed that it resembled Islam, not deliberate.
While we are on the subject, I think it is an interesting paradox that left wingers won't hear a word said against Islam despite Muslims being very intolerant of many lefty favourites(equality for women and gays etc) while right wingers seem to have it in for Muslims despite them sharing many old fashioned values that they want to preserve ( marriage, discipline in schools)
We're all a bit different on this and it doesn't divide that tidily. I'm sceptical of religion, and the more dogmatic the religion the more sceptical I am. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to portray all followers of any particular religion as having common characteristics, and think that a bad habit more common on the right, because it's a habit that carries over from national stereotyping. But I feel very much at home with conservatives who say we should treat people as individuals without generalising (I'm also critical of far-left types who categorise all posh people or all businessmen as enemies).
I have good friends who are charismatic Christians (speaking in tongues and all that) and devout Muslims. I think some of their beliefs are strange and they think my absence of belief is sad (one of the Christians says he feels it's a shame I'll probably go to hell, and he hopes he can yet save me). But primarily they're just nice people and I dislike anyone making assumptions about them.
The problem with that nick, is the reason you think that way is because you are left wing and not religious. Strictly religious people do see things in terms of division between right and wrong, that's where the paradox lies; the empathy, if it exists, which I doubt, is one sided
Many deeply religious people are almost tortured by nuance and the desire to see all sides in an argument - from personal experience Methodists and Quakers that I know spring to mind and a fair few Anglicans. The Catholic priest at my mother-in-law's Church is about as non-dogmatic as you can get. Getting them to talk about right and wrong in absolute terms would be all but impossible. It is up to God to judge, not us, they would say.
Shouldn't the UKIP colour be a sort of greyish-beige?
It will soon be blue as it replaces the pale lilac immitation that is the current Tory party
Thanks to UKIP, everything will soon be Euro-blue with gold stars on it. Exit not an option....
Telling someone that the best way to get something they want is to vote for a party committed to the opposite may not be the easiest sell in the world.
UKIP are looking like a classic example of cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I have a vague memory that the Tories used that poster in the past (Scottish devolution maybe?) but couldn't find it with a quick google
The arrogance of Tories who think they deserve votes from people they have scorned or ignored for years. If you want UKIP support then change your policies. Otherwise you deserve to lose.
Crikey, Mrs Free, if you are going to trace back the seeds of the 2007 banking crash to a 1980's reform in the way stocks and shares could be traded let us go the whole hog and blame the Dutch. They were the ones that came up with this new-fangled finance stuff in the first place and you can trace a straight-line of development from 17th century Amsterdam to early 21st century practices in the City. So no one is to blame except for some long dead Cloggies! Huzzah!
An alternative is to say actually banking practices in the early 2000s had bugger all to do with politicians who had been out of power for a very long time and everything to do with those politicians who introduced the regulatory framework that was then in place.
These are poor numbers for all 3 main parties, Labour only 1% up on Kinnock's '92 total, the Tories below '97 and the LDs level with the Greens in 1 and only just ahead of them in another
Kinnock's 1992 vote is the second best in total numbers that Labour has had since the 1970s. He got Labour nearly one million more votes than Cameron got the Tories in 2010.
Crikey, Mrs Free, if you are going to trace back the seeds of the 2007 banking crash to a 1980's reform in the way stocks and shares could be traded let us go the whole hog and blame the Dutch. They were the ones that came up with this new-fangled finance stuff in the first place and you can trace a straight-line of development from 17th century Amsterdam to early 21st century practices in the City. So no one is to blame except for some long dead Cloggies! Huzzah!
An alternative is to say actually banking practices in the early 2000s had bugger all to do with politicians who had been out of power for a very long time and everything to do with those politicians who introduced the regulatory framework that was then in place.
Crikey, Mrs Free, if you are going to trace back the seeds of the 2007 banking crash to a 1980's reform in the way stocks and shares could be traded let us go the whole hog and blame the Dutch. They were the ones that came up with this new-fangled finance stuff in the first place and you can trace a straight-line of development from 17th century Amsterdam to early 21st century practices in the City. So no one is to blame except for some long dead Cloggies! Huzzah!
An alternative is to say actually banking practices in the early 2000s had bugger all to do with politicians who had been out of power for a very long time and everything to do with those politicians who introduced the regulatory framework that was then in place.
80s deregulation created the disastrous model that all other subsequent politicians followed.
Even now Osborne and Cameron are wedded to it, having learned nothing from the crash.
Shouldn't the UKIP colour be a sort of greyish-beige?
It will soon be blue as it replaces the pale lilac immitation that is the current Tory party
Thanks to UKIP, everything will soon be Euro-blue with gold stars on it. Exit not an option....
Telling someone that the best way to get something they want is to vote for a party committed to the opposite may not be the easiest sell in the world.
UKIP are looking like a classic example of cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I have a vague memory that the Tories used that poster in the past (Scottish devolution maybe?) but couldn't find it with a quick google
The arrogance of Tories who think they deserve votes from people they have scorned or ignored for years. If you want UKIP support then change your policies. Otherwise you deserve to lose.
Both Tories and Kippers are losing here. I would be happy with that.
It does look like a eurosceptic reshuffle has dented the Tories by banging on about Europe again.
Either that, or the summer holidays have begun, and everyone is on the beach.
The problem with that nick, is the reason you think that way is because you are left wing and not religious. Strictly religious people do see things in terms of division between right and wrong, that's where the paradox lies; the empathy, if it exists, which I doubt, is one sided
The other point is that the temporal policies necessitated by certain religions can appear, when viewed purely in secular terms, as quite left wing. Thus the Islamic State claims to represent a middle way between the excesses of capitalism on the one hand and socialism on the other. Private business and economic inequality are allowed, but the basic needs of the community of the faithful are met by the state, water resources are collectivised and usury is prohibited. Likewise, note those Christians who failed to heed Christ's declaration to Pontius Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world, and consequently mistakenly believed him to be an advocate of socialism as a political program.
SO Irrelevant as Major got more votes than any PM in history, as a percentage Kinnock got a total that was so low Labour had to wait until Brown in 2010 to fall below it, indeed Callaghan got a higher total than Kinnock when he lost in 1979
Two desperately poor poor polls today for the Tories, which endorse Labour's increased lead as recently reported by YouGov. If the reshuffle was intended to freshen up the party's image and help to attract the female vote it appears to have failed miserably. On anything like these numbers, Betfair's current odds of 9/4 net against a Labour majority looks like good value, but DYOR.
The problem with that nick, is the reason you think that way is because you are left wing and not religious. Strictly religious people do see things in terms of division between right and wrong, that's where the paradox lies; the empathy, if it exists, which I doubt, is one sided
The other point is that the temporal policies necessitated by certain religions can appear, when viewed purely in secular terms, as quite left wing. Thus the Islamic State claims to represent a middle way between the excesses of capitalism on the one hand and socialism on the other. Private business and economic inequality are allowed, but the basic needs of the community of the faithful are met by the state, water resources are collectivised and usury is prohibited. Likewise, note those Christians who failed to heed Christ's declaration to Pontius Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world, and consequently mistakenly believed him to be an advocate of socialism as a political program.
Since the collapse of communism there has been a vacuum where the Communists stood. A vacancy was created in the political space for angry young men with beards who were contemptuous of the consumerist capitalist states with their effete democracies and craving simple answers.
Two desperately poor poor polls today for the Tories, which endorse Labour's increased lead as recently reported by YouGov. If the reshuffle was intended to freshen up the party's image and help to attract the female vote it appears to have failed miserably. On anything like these numbers, Betfair's current odds of 9/4 net against a Labour majority looks like good value, but DYOR.
Shouldn't the UKIP colour be a sort of greyish-beige?
It will soon be blue as it replaces the pale lilac immitation that is the current Tory party
Thanks to UKIP, everything will soon be Euro-blue with gold stars on it. Exit not an option....
Telling someone that the best way to get something they want is to vote for a party committed to the opposite may not be the easiest sell in the world.
UKIP are looking like a classic example of cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I have a vague memory that the Tories used that poster in the past (Scottish devolution maybe?) but couldn't find it with a quick google
Maybe, Mr. Charles, but measured over what time scale? If UKIP had not developed as a force, such as it is, do you think Cameron would have promised a referendum? If UKIP went away do you think Cameron would slide back into his comfort zone ("There are no circumstances ..." etc.).
You see from where I sit the Conservatives have elected themselves a stone-bonker, heir to Blair, Europhile leader. Cameron has also, in recent times, come up with some contradictory statements. He wants to stay in the EU, he wants to negotiate a new settlement (though nobody in else in the EU does), he wants to sell us this new settlement in 2017 when he will campaign to stay in, he can't tell us what the new settlement could be, or even what he would like it to be, because that would spoil his negotiating position. Its complete horseshit. If someone in business came to you with that sort of attitude you would sling him out of your office inside five minutes.
Then there is the personal level. Individuals were worried about where Cameron seemed to want to go and were looking at what UKIP were saying. Cameron the accused those people, mostly good people who mostly voted Conservative, of being fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists. Now he wants them to vote for him.
UKIP voters cutting off their noses? Yes, maybe, but from their point of view why not? Where is the benefit in voting for a party whose leader despises them, has said he opposes their core desire, and is about as believable as one of Paul Daniels magic tricks?
Crikey, Mrs Free, if you are going to trace back the seeds of the 2007 banking crash to a 1980's reform in the way stocks and shares could be traded let us go the whole hog and blame the Dutch. They were the ones that came up with this new-fangled finance stuff in the first place and you can trace a straight-line of development from 17th century Amsterdam to early 21st century practices in the City. So no one is to blame except for some long dead Cloggies! Huzzah!
An alternative is to say actually banking practices in the early 2000s had bugger all to do with politicians who had been out of power for a very long time and everything to do with those politicians who introduced the regulatory framework that was then in place.
Trouble is I was around and working in the City then and indeed was involved in the very start of regulation and every variant of it since. I have seen and investigated more examples of misbehaviour than is decent. While human behaviour (greed and stupidity) is a constant, the environment in which it can and cannot flourish changes.
Some of the Big Bang changes were for the good. If they'd been better controlled then we might have had an industry which was effective, competitive, profitable and a credit to the country. But sometimes - all too often, in fact - people assume that because something is good, more of it is necessarily also an unalloyed good. And it ain't so. There is a limit and the industry itself and politicians and regulators and, indeed, the public were - and are - very bad at assessing when we've reached that limit where more will mean worse (whether in terms of bad loans or bad risks or outright criminality).
Deregulation was good in 1986. That did not mean that endless deregulation and light touch or wrong touch regulation in 2005 was also good. Allowing banks to become bigger to have economies of scale = good; allowing them to become so big a la RBS = not so good. Etc etc.
The criticisms made of Brown and what he did in 1997 have some force. But it is interesting that today very similar criticisms are being made of the changes which this government has made to regulation and, specifically, the split between the PRA and the FCA.
I remain of the old-fashioned view that no system, however perfectly designed, is proof against dishonest people and a bad system can work surprisingly well if you have honest people with integrity in it trying to do the right thing. Which is why the quality and character of people you have working for you are at least as important as the specific rules and structures you have in place.
We're all a bit different on this and it doesn't divide that tidily. I'm sceptical of religion, and the more dogmatic the religion the more sceptical I am. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to portray all followers of any particular religion as having common characteristics, and think that a bad habit more common on the right, because it's a habit that carries over from national stereotyping.
Religion, like nationalism, and unlike nationality, is an ideology which is chosen by the adherent. There is almost always very limited evidence to justify national stereotypes. On the other hand, it is perfectly legitimate to point out that adherents to a particular ideology do share common beliefs, and may be prepared to act on them. The only ground for limiting generalisations about followers of a given sect is the complexity of, and variation within the ideology in question. But that is as true for Marxism as it is for Protestantism, Sunni Islam or Shia heresy.
You're a strict believer in consistent thinking, precisely applied. Very few people in my experience are. My charismatic Christian friend believes homosexuality is probably a sin, but until recently he was working closely with several gay people - asked if it bothered him, he shrugged and said it wasn't up to him to judge individuals. The Muslim couple say they do what the religion says because they were brought up to it, but they suppose if they'd been brought up as Christians they'd be Christian. They believe that preachers who advocate intolerance should be locked up - "they're a disgrace and embarrass us all". And yeah, I've known lots of Marxists who didn't tick all the boxes, including my past self. Many (most?) people in Britain adopt ideas when young and then bend them to meet their perception of reality, eventually lapsing into a sort of baffled agnosticism.
The problem with that nick, is the reason you think that way is because you are left wing and not religious. Strictly religious people do see things in terms of division between right and wrong, that's where the paradox lies; the empathy, if it exists, which I doubt, is one sided
The other point is that the temporal policies necessitated by certain religions can appear, when viewed purely in secular terms, as quite left wing. Thus the Islamic State claims to represent a middle way between the excesses of capitalism on the one hand and socialism on the other. Private business and economic inequality are allowed, but the basic needs of the community of the faithful are met by the state, water resources are collectivised and usury is prohibited. Likewise, note those Christians who failed to heed Christ's declaration to Pontius Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world, and consequently mistakenly believed him to be an advocate of socialism as a political program.
Since the collapse of communism there has been a vacuum where the Communists stood. A vacancy was created in the political space for angry young men with beards who were contemptuous of the consumerist capitalist states with their effete democracies and craving simple answers.
Save that that angry young men with beards got Khomeini in power in Iran in 1979 before Communism collapsed and the Islamist ideology (see Hassan Al Bana and the Muslim Brotherhood) had been around for longer. People persist in ignoring the very long roots which Islamism has. It is not a reaction to recent events in the West however much we would like to think so.
Still, interesting to see the very different changes which 1979 brought to the Western and Middle Eastern worlds, both (in their own way) a reaction to perceived failures in the preceding years.
The problem with that nick, is the reason you think that way is because you are left wing and not religious. Strictly religious people do see things in terms of division between right and wrong, that's where the paradox lies; the empathy, if it exists, which I doubt, is one sided
A strict belief in anything is dangerous IMO. My point is that not many people are half as strict as you might think from their appearance etc. or indeed as they think they are.You probably shouldn't try to second-guess me on whether my friends are empathetic because it doesn't fit your ideas. One might think that you had excessively strict beliefs yourself. :-)
Crikey, Mrs Free, if you are going to trace back the seeds of the 2007 banking crash to a 1980's reform in the way stocks and shares could be traded let us go the whole hog and blame the Dutch. They were the ones that came up with this new-fangled finance stuff in the first place and you can trace a straight-line of development from 17th century Amsterdam to early 21st century practices in the City. So no one is to blame except for some long dead Cloggies! Huzzah!
An alternative is to say actually banking practices in the early 2000s had bugger all to do with politicians who had been out of power for a very long time and everything to do with those politicians who introduced the regulatory framework that was then in place.
80s deregulation created the disastrous model that all other subsequent politicians followed.
Even now Osborne and Cameron are wedded to it, having learned nothing from the crash.
Crikey, I do feel like I am going around in circles here. What in the 1980's was so disastrous that the fact that all politicians have followed it since has led to Armageddon? Which measures? Was it enabling shares to be traded electronically? Was it the abolition of capital controls? Was it the break-up the City cartels? I don't know. Yet for years and years every time I turn around there is someone telling me that it was Thatcher's fault for the 1980s deregulation. If that is true then surely someone can point me in the correct direction and say it was this act/measure.statutory instrument, or at least provide a coherent argument as to why the Big Bang/Thatcher/Regan/1980's deregulation kicked it all off and why Brown did nothing about it.
SO The point about the same vote getting more seats for Labour on a lower turnout is a valid one, though it also depends on the Tory defectors to UKIP not returning home
Clinton era deregulation, abolition of Glass Steagall etc.
The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which George Bush jumped on to win Hispanic votes but only ensured the 'minority mortgage meltdown' or subprime crisis.
Those countries that ran unsustainable public spending and failed to curb financial sector excess through regulation or interest rates (Greece, Ireland, Iceland and Labour's Britain).
''Continuing the discussion from the last thread, "Big Bang" was Thatcher's cornerstone financial policy.''
I owe my career to big bang, for what its worth. Before it the City was a tiny and ineffectual club for chinless wonders. After Big Bang the Japanese and Americans moved in, and guess what, they didn't care what tie you wore or which regiment you served in.
This is where people get Mrs Thatcher so wrong. She was happy to eviscerate the old City, no matter how many well connected chaps it shook to the core. She didn't like upper class vested interest any more than trade union vested interest, or civil service vested interest.
Don't disagree with any of that. It was the long term consequences of Big Bang that was under discussion
Two desperately poor poor polls today for the Tories, which endorse Labour's increased lead as recently reported by YouGov. If the reshuffle was intended to freshen up the party's image and help to attract the female vote it appears to have failed miserably. On anything like these numbers, Betfair's current odds of 9/4 net against a Labour majority looks like good value, but DYOR.
It shows how things have changed turnout-wise when you think that with 11.5 million votes Labour got under 230 seats in 1992.
Landslide for Ed if he manages 11.5 million this time.
For Dave too.
What are the odds that no party secures even 10 million next year? They must be pretty high. Way higher than the chances of any securing 11.5 million.
I've been consistently topping up against Conservative majority @ 3.85 - its a massive lay in my opinion.
Yep, 3.85 equates to a 26% probability ..... not a million miles away in fact from Stephen Fisher's current projection of 30% and that was prior to these latest polls!
'It is perhaps worth emphasising that neither the Ashcroft national poll nor the Populus online one have been tested at a general election. ' Hardly a ringing vote of confidence. Why should Lord Ashcroft commission these polls if it is not to use them to peddle his own views? There are no shortages of polls.
The problem with that nick, is the reason you think that way is because you are left wing and not religious. Strictly religious people do see things in terms of division between right and wrong, that's where the paradox lies; the empathy, if it exists, which I doubt, is one sided
The other point is that the temporal policies necessitated by certain religions can appear, when viewed purely in secular terms, as quite left wing. Thus the Islamic State claims to represent a middle way between the excesses of capitalism on the one hand and socialism on the other. Private business and economic inequality are allowed, but the basic needs of the community of the faithful are met by the state, water resources are collectivised and usury is prohibited. Likewise, note those Christians who failed to heed Christ's declaration to Pontius Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world, and consequently mistakenly believed him to be an advocate of socialism as a political program.
Since the collapse of communism there has been a vacuum where the Communists stood. A vacancy was created in the political space for angry young men with beards who were contemptuous of the consumerist capitalist states with their effete democracies and craving simple answers.
Save that that angry young men with beards got Khomeini in power in Iran in 1979 before Communism collapsed and the Islamist ideology (see Hassan Al Bana and the Muslim Brotherhood) had been around for longer. People persist in ignoring the very long roots which Islamism has. It is not a reaction to recent events in the West however much we would like to think so.
Still, interesting to see the very different changes which 1979 brought to the Western and Middle Eastern worlds, both (in their own way) a reaction to perceived failures in the preceding years.
Communism had clearly failed by the late Seventies and was just shoring up its defences. Islamist movements go back to the original Caliphate, but it is only recently that they have got powerful in the Sunni world.
There is a genuine gap in the ideological sphere for a philosophy opposed to consumer capitalism and sympathetic to the seemingly oppressed. It is a space for the religious and green parties as well as some of the nationalist parties.
''Continuing the discussion from the last thread, "Big Bang" was Thatcher's cornerstone financial policy.''
I owe my career to big bang, for what its worth. Before it the City was a tiny and ineffectual club for chinless wonders. After Big Bang the Japanese and Americans moved in, and guess what, they didn't care what tie you wore or which regiment you served in.
This is where people get Mrs Thatcher so wrong. She was happy to eviscerate the old City, no matter how many well connected chaps it shook to the core. She didn't like upper class vested interest any more than trade union vested interest, or civil service vested interest.
Don't disagree with any of that. It was the long term consequences of Big Bang that was under discussion
You will have to forgive me because I genuinely do not know the answer to this question But after Big Bang in what way were we different from other financial markets? If we somehow had a magical advantage then did our cometitors do nothing or did they emulate us?
My reason for asking is that if there were some consequences peculiar to Big Bang then surely the whole world is involved. Plus at the end of the day its the govt of the day's reponsibility to regulate financial services.
Two desperately poor poor polls today for the Tories, which endorse Labour's increased lead as recently reported by YouGov. If the reshuffle was intended to freshen up the party's image and help to attract the female vote it appears to have failed miserably. On anything like these numbers, Betfair's current odds of 9/4 net against a Labour majority looks like good value, but DYOR.
I went on record here calling Gove's sacking a masterstroke and saying it was a good reshuffle.
Yet more proof I should avoid analysing Tory strategy. You'd have thought I would have learned my lesson after losing my shirt betting on a Tory majority last time.
Crikey, I do feel like I am going around in circles here. What in the 1980's was so disastrous that the fact that all politicians have followed it since has led to Armageddon? Which measures? Was it enabling shares to be traded electronically? Was it the abolition of capital controls? Was it the break-up the City cartels? I don't know. Yet for years and years every time I turn around there is someone telling me that it was Thatcher's fault for the 1980s deregulation. If that is true then surely someone can point me in the correct direction and say it was this act/measure.statutory instrument, or at least provide a coherent argument as to why the Big Bang/Thatcher/Regan/1980's deregulation kicked it all off and why Brown did nothing about it.
I don't think you can point to one act which was the cause Mr Llama. There are lots of points at which, if things had been done differently, we would be in a different position now.
But the break up of City cartels and the opening up of the City to bigger institutions was one key change. Beforehand, those who traded their own money and took their own risks were quite separate to those who acted for clients as their agents. Put them together and there is both (1) an inherent conflict of interest which has to be managed, with all the issues that raises; and (2) the institution has the implied benefit of the much larger balance sheet and the effective government backing given, if not explicitly, to retail customers.
That means they can take more and bigger risks; they become bigger; they bring in more tax revenue; they seem more effective and competitive. They think they're doing well until it's realised that - actually - they're rubbish at managing their risk. they have not managed their conflicts well, they have not really complied with the fiduciary duties they owe their clients and their risks are now so large that they threaten other banks and, indeed, the economy as a whole.
Getting from A (small broker) to B (enormous bank with lots of different divisions with a balance sheet the size of a small continent) takes time. There are lots of points at which we collectively could have gone down a different route. That is where the valid criticism of governments in power from 1997 onwards is justified. But it is also true to say that the seeds were sown 10 years previously. It does not mean that once Big Bang happened the financial crisis in 2008 was inevitable.
'It is perhaps worth emphasising that neither the Ashcroft national poll nor the Populus online one have been tested at a general election. ' Hardly a ringing vote of confidence. Why should Lord Ashcroft commission these polls if it is not to use them to peddle his own views? There are no shortages of polls.
He surely has cheaper ways to peddle his own views, notwithstanding that he is rich enough for how much they cost not to cause a bother.
Crikey, I do feel like I am going around in circles here.
Welcome to PB ;-)
Thank you, Mr. Hopkins. I think I'll go and play somewhere else for a while. People talking about the Big Bang as if it were the other Big Bang and the start of the universe is doing my head in.
Since the collapse of communism there has been a vacuum where the Communists stood. A vacancy was created in the political space for angry young men with beards who were contemptuous of the consumerist capitalist states with their effete democracies and craving simple answers.
Save that that angry young men with beards got Khomeini in power in Iran in 1979 before Communism collapsed and the Islamist ideology (see Hassan Al Bana and the Muslim Brotherhood) had been around for longer. People persist in ignoring the very long roots which Islamism has. It is not a reaction to recent events in the West however much we would like to think so.
Still, interesting to see the very different changes which 1979 brought to the Western and Middle Eastern worlds, both (in their own way) a reaction to perceived failures in the preceding years.
Communism had clearly failed by the late Seventies and was just shoring up its defences. Islamist movements go back to the original Caliphate, but it is only recently that they have got powerful in the Sunni world.
There is a genuine gap in the ideological sphere for a philosophy opposed to consumer capitalism and sympathetic to the seemingly oppressed. It is a space for the religious and green parties as well as some of the nationalist parties.
I agree with the general point but I think Islamist movements have been powerful since Khomeini seized power in 1979 and while they fill a gap they are in the tradition of anti-modernist movements since Fascism and Communism. Indeed, in some surprising ways, the Muslim Brotherhood apes some of the behaviours and ideologies of both movements. Islamism is a religiously based reaction and alternative to the modern liberal world. It is precisely its roots in the religion of Islam which gives it its power because it is very hard to attack it successfully without at the same time attacking the religion from which it derives and which it claims to be enforcing.
The problem with that nick, is the reason you think that way is because you are left wing and not religious. Strictly religious people do see things in terms of division between right and wrong, that's where the paradox lies; the empathy, if it exists, which I doubt, is one sided
A strict belief in anything is dangerous IMO. My point is that not many people are half as strict as you might think from their appearance etc. or indeed as they think they are.:-)
A very relevant point, and one which explains how many people of sincere and deep conviction in something can in fact be shown to hold contradictory views of that same something very easily. They are not automatically hypocrites in such instances - though there are plenty of those as well, I've no doubt someone looking closely into my own views could find something which demonstrates clear hypocrisy on a certain point -but people develop views and opinions for complex series of factors, consciously and unconsciously, even as they might believe it to be some simple consequence of being lefty/religious/whatever, even if it is demonstrated that many of their views many not be consistent with the very thing they perceive themselves to be strict adherents of.
Crikey, I do feel like I am going around in circles here. What in the 1980's was so disastrous that the fact that all politicians have followed it since has led to Armageddon? Which measures? Was it enabling shares to be traded electronically? Was it the abolition of capital controls? Was it the break-up the City cartels? I don't know. Yet for years and years every time I turn around there is someone telling me that it was Thatcher's fault for the 1980s deregulation. If that is true then surely someone can point me in the correct direction and say it was this act/measure.statutory instrument, or at least provide a coherent argument as to why the Big Bang/Thatcher/Regan/1980's deregulation kicked it all off and why Brown did nothing about it.
I don't think you can point to one act which was the cause Mr Llama. There are lots of points at which, if things had been done differently, we would be in a different position now.
But the break up of City cartels and the opening up of the City to bigger institutions was one key change. Beforehand, those who traded their own money and took their own risks were quite separate to those who acted for clients as their agents. Put them together and there is both (1) an inherent conflict of interest which has to be managed, with all the issues that raises; and (2) the institution has the implied benefit of the much larger balance sheet and the effective government backing given, if not explicitly, to retail customers.
That means they can take more and bigger risks; they become bigger; they bring in more tax revenue; they seem more effective and competitive. They think they're doing well until it's realised that - actually - they're rubbish at managing their risk. they have not managed their conflicts well, they have not really complied with the fiduciary duties they owe their clients and their risks are now so large that they threaten other banks and, indeed, the economy as a whole.
Getting from A (small broker) to B (enormous bank with lots of different divisions with a balance sheet the size of a small continent) takes time. There are lots of points at which we collectively could have gone down a different route. That is where the valid criticism of governments in power from 1997 onwards is justified. But it is also true to say that the seeds were sown 10 years previously. It does not mean that once Big Bang happened the financial crisis in 2008 was inevitable.
Something wrong with my editing. These were my words rather than Mr Llama's.
To my simple mind Mr. Ashcroft does seem to be playing it straight,namely giving the grey godess of stochasticity a free rein. But I'm wondering whether a new category might not be sensible: that of "non-responder". I have become one of these and, I suspect in many cases Malcolm is too. I shall deliver my opinions freely, tediously and at length to friends & family, but not to pollsters. We have opinions, and thus aren't DKs, but won't tell them for many reasons. I wonder how many of us there are.
seems the Antonov was shot down on the 14th at 6000m but the implications didn't fully sink in straight away
The interesting point Dr North is making being that contrary to all the western claims it appears likely that the missile system was not supplied by Russia but was captured directly from the Ukrainians.
To my simple mind Mr. Ashcroft does seem to be playing it straight,namely giving the grey godess of stochasticity a free rein. But I'm wondering whether a new category might not be sensible: that of "non-responder". I have become one of these and, I suspect in many cases Malcolm is too. I shall deliver my opinions freely, tediously and at length to friends & family, but not to pollsters. We have opinions, and thus aren't DKs, but won't tell them for many reasons. I wonder how many of us there are.
And...what do you achieve with that attitude ? It is like people who always moan about the government but will not vote because "they are all the same".
The banking crisis boils down to one thing, in my book, the democratisation of credit.
Before credit cards and the like it was inconceivable that, say, a bricklayer or a nurse could get much credit. Often they were paid in cash and when the money ran out that was it.
Then suddenly credit in the western world became some sort of democratic right. People expected it, whatever their earnings or place in life. Even those in and out of the welfare system could get a credit card or a home loan. Politicians realised there were votes in credit and lent on the banks hard. In return they expected consolidation to go through on the nod.
Gradually the thing spiralled until ever bigger banks were lending ever more money on homes to ever more people who had no prospect of paying back. Thus begat subprime, and the rest is history.
The credit crunch of 2008 wasn;t really a crunch. It was a return to sanity.
Just supposing that Labour were to win a small overall majority of between 20 - 40 seats, (i.e. by winning between 336 - 346 seats) not unlikely on the back of these latest polling numbers and that "Other Parties" (incl the LibDems with around 35 seats) were to win a combined total of approximately 65 seats, this would leave the Tories winning the balance of between 239 - 249 seats, maybe a few more, maybe a few less. A possible outcome of this order makes Ladbrokes' odds of 10/1 against the Tories winning between 226 - 250 seats look decidedly attractive imho, but DYOR.
The problem with that nick, is the reason you think that way is because you are left wing and not religious. Strictly religious people do see things in terms of division between right and wrong, that's where the paradox lies; the empathy, if it exists, which I doubt, is one sided
The other point is that the temporal policies necessitated by certain religions can appear, when viewed purely in secular terms, as quite left wing. Thus the Islamic State claims to represent a middle way between the excesses of capitalism on the one hand and socialism on the other. Private business and economic inequality are allowed, but the basic needs of the community of the faithful are met by the state, water resources are collectivised and usury is prohibited. Likewise, note those Christians who failed to heed Christ's declaration to Pontius Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world, and consequently mistakenly believed him to be an advocate of socialism as a political program.
Since the collapse of communism there has been a vacuum where the Communists stood. A vacancy was created in the political space for angry young men with beards who were contemptuous of the consumerist capitalist states with their effete democracies and craving simple answers.
Save that that angry young men with beards got Khomeini in power in Iran in 1979 before Communism collapsed and the Islamist ideology (see Hassan Al Bana and the Muslim Brotherhood) had been around for longer. People persist in ignoring the very long roots which Islamism has. It is not a reaction to recent events in the West however much we would like to think so.
Still, interesting to see the very different changes which 1979 brought to the Western and Middle Eastern worlds, both (in their own way) a reaction to perceived failures in the preceding years.
Communism had clearly failed by the late Seventies and was just shoring up its defences. Islamist movements go back to the original Caliphate, but it is only recently that they have got powerful in the Sunni world.
There is a genuine gap in the ideological sphere for a philosophy opposed to consumer capitalism and sympathetic to the seemingly oppressed. It is a space for the religious and green parties as well as some of the nationalist parties.
"only recently got powerful in the Sunni world..." Backed by oil money?
To my simple mind Mr. Ashcroft does seem to be playing it straight,namely giving the grey godess of stochasticity a free rein. But I'm wondering whether a new category might not be sensible: that of "non-responder". I have become one of these and, I suspect in many cases Malcolm is too. I shall deliver my opinions freely, tediously and at length to friends & family, but not to pollsters. We have opinions, and thus aren't DKs, but won't tell them for many reasons. I wonder how many of us there are.
And...what do you achieve with that attitude ? It is like people who always moan about the government but will not vote because "they are all the same".
Please note that I'm not saying we shouldn't vote. Not.
Avoiding polls, however, doesn't achieve anything much, but it does save time, and that's nice. Also, when I did play the game I found suspicious "consumerist" questions sneaking in. I wonder if we're suffering from cumulative poll poisoning.
Now that takes me over 300. It's time for a glass or two. Italian I think.
seems the Antonov was shot down on the 14th at 6000m but the implications didn't fully sink in straight away
The interesting point Dr North is making being that contrary to all the western claims it appears likely that the missile system was not supplied by Russia but was captured directly from the Ukrainians.
True although personally i'm more interested in why the air space wasn't closed down to civilian traffic after the Antonov.
Contributions to PB are a reasonable weathervane on the state of support for parties. Go back a year or so and there was a majority of PB posters who appeared to fully support the Tories. Now I would say that there are fewer people who support the Tories and there are few who would back the Tories to win even the most seats.
The question is why with an improving economy do Tories feel so negative about their parties chances next year ? Has it got to the stage where people know what the likely outcome of the election will be ? This appears to be a Lab/Lib coalition, with some Lib Dem MP's already considering that outcome, thinking what policies they could work on together.
The banking crisis boils down to one thing, in my book, the democratisation of credit.
Before credit cards and the like it was inconceivable that, say, a bricklayer or a nurse could get much credit. Often they were paid in cash and when the money ran out that was it.
Then suddenly credit in the western world became some sort of democratic right. People expected it, whatever their earnings or place in life. Even those in and out of the welfare system could get a credit card or a home loan. Politicians realised there were votes in credit and lent on the banks hard. In return they expected consolidation to go through on the nod.
Gradually the thing spiralled until ever bigger banks were lending ever more money on homes to ever more people who had no prospect of paying back. Thus begat subprime, and the rest is history.
The credit crunch of 2008 wasn;t really a crunch. It was a return to sanity.
"Take the waiting out of wanting". Wasn't that the slogan for one of the early credit cards?
Trouble is if you spend what you don't have you have to pay it back eventually, which is what - very very slowly - we are trying to do now.
Some loosening of credit is good. Without it firms can't borrow to invest, for instance. But too much and what you get is people spending like there's no tomorrow, not saving and one almighty headache when it all goes wrong as it will, eventually.
And if you say to people now that they can only go on holiday or buy a car or a new phone or whatever when they have saved up the money to be able to afford it outright, they look at you as if you're from the moon.
I agree with the general point but I think Islamist movements have been powerful since Khomeini seized power in 1979 and while they fill a gap they are in the tradition of anti-modernist movements since Fascism and Communism. Indeed, in some surprising ways, the Muslim Brotherhood apes some of the behaviours and ideologies of both movements. Islamism is a religiously based reaction and alternative to the modern liberal world. It is precisely its roots in the religion of Islam which gives it its power because it is very hard to attack it successfully without at the same time attacking the religion from which it derives and which it claims to be enforcing.
The West is always looking for demons and finding one whenever someone does not agree with them.
The Ayatollah became enemy no.1 because his popular movement removed the pro-American Shah [ I thought we supported democracy ]. Attacks on the embassy , great satan etc. came afterwards.
In the Muslim world, ironically, it is the Shias who are the liberals and the Sunnis the conservatives. For example, in Iran and Iraq one can see the portraits of religious figures like Ali which would be unthinkable in a Sunni country. Theology as a subject is discussed. There is no such discussion amongst Sunnis. That is why ISIS, AQ, Taleban etc. are Sunnis.
I do not know what happened in the Rouhani / Kerry meetings but it would not surprise me if Rouhani or his able Foreign Minister may have asked the Americans aside, "Please tell us, why are we the bad guys ?" If nuclear bombs are the issue, Pakistan, India, Israel [ South Africa before ] also have bombs. I do not for a moment think Iran will hand over nuclear technology let alone bombs to any "terrorist". Most of the known "terrorist" groups are actually heavily anti-Iranian. Hezbollah is the Shi'ite exception. It does oppose Israeli hegemony. Recent events, not for the first time, has underlined That Israel needs to be controlled as they are now totally out of control. Hezbollah, like the Muslim Brotherhood, is also a social welfare organisation with massive popularity amongst the poor. We prefer to support the murderor Al-Sisi who mowed down 500 Egyptians in one night. No calls in the West for his trial because he is "our guy".
Islam is the ultimate capitalistic religion. It is theologically, anti Communist not for economic reasons but because tehy perceive Communists as Godless.
Shouldn't the UKIP colour be a sort of greyish-beige?
It will soon be blue as it replaces the pale lilac immitation that is the current Tory party
Thanks to UKIP, everything will soon be Euro-blue with gold stars on it. Exit not an option....
Telling someone that the best way to get something they want is to vote for a party committed to the opposite may not be the easiest sell in the world.
UKIP are looking like a classic example of cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I have a vague memory that the Tories used that poster in the past (Scottish devolution maybe?) but couldn't find it with a quick google
The arrogance of Tories who think they deserve votes from people they have scorned or ignored for years. If you want UKIP support then change your policies. Otherwise you deserve to lose.
What a strange response.
The Tories don't "deserve" votes as of right from anyone. - they need to convince them to lend them their support.
But it's quite simple: a vote for UKIP will, in most cases, reduce the chance of a Tory-led government after 2015. Assuming that a UKIP majority government is not a plausible outcome then a vote for UKIP will reduce the chance of a referendum on EU membership in the next Parliament.
If may be, of course, that EU membership is not the primary reason to vote UKIP. If that is the case, then the above logic, will not impact voting intention
The problem with that nick, is the reason you think that way is because you are left wing and not religious. Strictly religious people do see things in terms of division between right and wrong, that's where the paradox lies; the empathy, if it exists, which I doubt, is one sided
The other point is that the temporal policies necessitated by certain religions can appear, when viewed purely in secular terms, as quite left wing. Thus the Islamic State claims to represent a middle way between the excesses of capitalism on the one hand and socialism on the other. Private business and economic inequality are allowed, but the basic needs of the community of the faithful are met by the state, water resources are collectivised and usury is prohibited. Likewise, note those Christians who failed to heed Christ's declaration to Pontius Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world, and consequently mistakenly believed him to be an advocate of socialism as a political program.
Since the collapse of communism there has been a vacuum where the Communists stood. A vacancy was created in the political space for angry young men with beards who were contemptuous of the consumerist capitalist states with their effete democracies and craving simple answers.
Save that that angry young men with beards got Khomeini in power in Iran in 1979 before Communism collapsed and the Islamist ideology (see Hassan Al Bana and the Muslim Brotherhood) had been around for longer. People persist in ignoring the very long roots which Islamism has. It is not a reaction to recent events in the West however much we would like to think so.
Still, interesting to see the very different changes which 1979 brought to the Western and Middle Eastern worlds, both (in their own way) a reaction to perceived failures in the preceding years.
Communism had clearly failed by the late Seventies and was just shoring up its defences. Islamist movements go back to the original Caliphate, but it is only recently that they have got powerful in the Sunni world.
There is a genuine gap in the ideological sphere for a philosophy opposed to consumer capitalism and sympathetic to the seemingly oppressed. It is a space for the religious and green parties as well as some of the nationalist parties.
"only recently got powerful in the Sunni world..." Backed by oil money?
The seventies oil crises did put a lot of money in the hands of the Saudis in particular, often into the hands of young men with too much time on their hands. It made the mosques and madrassas well financed, and indeed in many places such as Pakistan the only viable place to get an education.
The West is always looking for demons and finding one whenever someone does not agree with them.
The Ayatollah became enemy no.1 because his popular movement removed the pro-American Shah [ I thought we supported democracy ]. Attacks on the embassy , great satan etc. came afterwards.
In the Muslim world, ironically, it is the Shias who are the liberals and the Sunnis the conservatives. For example, in Iran and Iraq one can see the portraits of religious figures like Ali which would be unthinkable in a Sunni country. Theology as a subject is discussed. There is no such discussion amongst Sunnis. That is why ISIS, AQ, Taleban etc. are Sunnis.
I do not know what happened in the Rouhani / Kerry meetings but it would not surprise me if Rouhani or his able Foreign Minister may have asked the Americans aside, "Please tell us, why are we the bad guys ?" If nuclear bombs are the issue, Pakistan, India, Israel [ South Africa before ] also have bombs. I do not for a moment think Iran will hand over nuclear technology let alone bombs to any "terrorist". Most of the known "terrorist" groups are actually heavily anti-Iranian. Hezbollah is the Shi'ite exception. It does oppose Israeli hegemony. Recent events, not for the first time, has underlined That Israel needs to be controlled as they are now totally out of control. Hezbollah, like the Muslim Brotherhood, is also a social welfare organisation with massive popularity amongst the poor. We prefer to support the murderor Al-Sisi who mowed down 500 Egyptians in one night. No calls in the West for his trial because he is "our guy".
Islam is the ultimate capitalistic religion. It is theologically, anti Communist not for economic reasons but because tehy perceive Communists as Godless.
None of these polls have been tested in a GE. How right Mike Smithson is to say so. I'll stick with ICM, the rise of UKIP notwithstanding, until events prove otherwise.
Maybe, Mr. Charles, but measured over what time scale? If UKIP had not developed as a force, such as it is, do you think Cameron would have promised a referendum? If UKIP went away do you think Cameron would slide back into his comfort zone ("There are no circumstances ..." etc.).
You see from where I sit the Conservatives have elected themselves a stone-bonker, heir to Blair, Europhile leader.
[Snip]
Its complete horseshit. If someone in business came to you with that sort of attitude you would sling him out of your office inside five minutes.
Then there is the personal level. Individuals were worried about where Cameron seemed to want to go and were looking at what UKIP were saying. Cameron the accused those people, mostly good people who mostly voted Conservative, of being fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists. Now he wants them to vote for him.
UKIP voters cutting off their noses? Yes, maybe, but from their point of view why not? Where is the benefit in voting for a party whose leader despises them, has said he opposes their core desire, and is about as believable as one of Paul Daniels magic tricks?
Possibly he might, although tbh, I think the internal dynamics in the party are more of a constraint than whether UKIP is on 10 or 14.
As for the fruitcakes that comment was made when UKIP was at 3%. It never related to former Tories like SeanF or your goodself. Of course people then made a game of trying to get Cameron to disavow the comments much later, but he was nevr going to. As far as I'm aware he didn't repeat them though.
Shouldn't the UKIP colour be a sort of greyish-beige?
It will soon be blue as it replaces the pale lilac immitation that is the current Tory party
Thanks to UKIP, everything will soon be Euro-blue with gold stars on it. Exit not an option....
Telling someone that the best way to get something they want is to vote for a party committed to the opposite may not be the easiest sell in the world.
UKIP are looking like a classic example of cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I have a vague memory that the Tories used that poster in the past (Scottish devolution maybe?) but couldn't find it with a quick google
The arrogance of Tories who think they deserve votes from people they have scorned or ignored for years. If you want UKIP support then change your policies. Otherwise you deserve to lose.
What a strange response.
The Tories don't "deserve" votes as of right from anyone. - they need to convince them to lend them their support.
But it's quite simple: a vote for UKIP will, in most cases, reduce the chance of a Tory-led government after 2015. Assuming that a UKIP majority government is not a plausible outcome then a vote for UKIP will reduce the chance of a referendum on EU membership in the next Parliament.
If may be, of course, that EU membership is not the primary reason to vote UKIP. If that is the case, then the above logic, will not impact voting intention
Tory arrogance shining through, thinking Kippers are stupid or Tories on holiday.
The West is always looking for demons and finding one whenever someone does not agree with them.
The Ayatollah became enemy no.1 because his popular movement removed the pro-American Shah [ I thought we supported democracy ]. Attacks on the embassy , great satan etc. came afterwards.
In the Muslim world, ironically, it is the Shias who are the liberals and the Sunnis the conservatives. For example, in Iran and Iraq one can see the portraits of religious figures like Ali which would be unthinkable in a Sunni country. Theology as a subject is discussed. There is no such discussion amongst Sunnis. That is why ISIS, AQ, Taleban etc. are Sunnis.
I do not know what happened in the Rouhani / Kerry meetings but it would not surprise me if Rouhani or his able Foreign Minister may have asked the Americans aside, "Please tell us, why are we the bad guys ?" If nuclear bombs are the issue, Pakistan, India, Israel [ South Africa before ] also have bombs. I do not for a moment think Iran will hand over nuclear technology let alone bombs to any "terrorist". Most of the known "terrorist" groups are actually heavily anti-Iranian. Hezbollah is the Shi'ite exception. It does oppose Israeli hegemony. Recent events, not for the first time, has underlined That Israel needs to be controlled as they are now totally out of control. Hezbollah, like the Muslim Brotherhood, is also a social welfare organisation with massive popularity amongst the poor. We prefer to support the murderor Al-Sisi who mowed down 500 Egyptians in one night. No calls in the West for his trial because he is "our guy".
Islam is the ultimate capitalistic religion. It is theologically, anti Communist not for economic reasons but because tehy perceive Communists as Godless.
I'm not sure I agree that Islam is a capitalistic religion. But I agree that there is a battle - a civil war even - within the Islamic world. It seems to have been going on pretty much since Islam has existed and shows no sign of ending.
Contributions to PB are a reasonable weathervane on the state of support for parties. Go back a year or so and there was a majority of PB posters who appeared to fully support the Tories. Now I would say that there are fewer people who support the Tories and there are few who would back the Tories to win even the most seats.
The question is why with an improving economy do Tories feel so negative about their parties chances next year ? Has it got to the stage where people know what the likely outcome of the election will be ? This appears to be a Lab/Lib coalition, with some Lib Dem MP's already considering that outcome, thinking what policies they could work on together.
I think people can only look at the barely changing Labour lead for so long before they start to doubt that floods of people will suddenly return to the LDs or significantly boost the Tory vote from last time, at least one of which and probably both would be needed to result in a Tory plurality, let alone majority. However crap Ed M might or might not be, we're 10 months out and any positive movement in the Tory direction seems, at the most positive end, minimal if not actually only temporary, that begins to wear on even the confident.
Comments
Tehran also refrained from enriching above the five-percent level at any of its nuclear facilities, the IAEA report said.
From the Telegraph. Possibly the most important item of news today. Certainly far more important then whether Miliband managed to get a cringeworthy five minutes in Washington or whatever old flannel Cameron came up with in the Commons.
I've never met Ashcroft, but the people I know at the IWM rate him and the public perception is of a down-to-earth (if a little thin-skinned) businessman
Political analysts of the coming decades will shake their heads and mumble "what the HELL did they think they were achieving?"
Oh, and everything that a Labour Govt. does? It will be laid at UKIP's door. For all time.
Any joy on when Regan repealed the Glass-Stegall Act, by the way?
Am I missing something here? I'll try again, the specific measures would be those enacted by Thatcher's Government in 1986 which ushered in the so-called "Big Bang" . I never mentioned Glass-Segall so I am not sure why you are getting on your high horse about who repealed it, I am well aware of when it was repealed. Initially I was responding to Richard Nabavi's assertion that Brown was wholly responsible for the 2008 crisis. I am simply agreeing with Nigel Lawson's view that the financial crisis was largely a consequence (all be it unintended) of Thatcher's "Big Bang" and it ultimately caused the US banks to follow suit.
Ed's just a normal multi millionaire.
'He's right that it's normal for people to like their children. It isn't quite so normal to have a property portfolio of £4.5m and a reported annual household income of about £340,000. It might be normal for the fortysomething former special advisers who now seem to run the country, but if you're going to slag off "millionaires in the cabinet" it's probably a good idea not to be one yourself. It certainly isn't normal to go on and on about a "cost of living crisis" and then not know the cost of your weekly shop.'
http://www.lyricsmania.com/big_five_lyrics_prince_buster.html
Warning not safe for sensitive souls and office PCs.
The song sounds good as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e00WGcJepsc
The one area I thought the Tories were doing particularly well was education, one reason I support UKIP is I want a return to grammar schools, however Gove was doing a fantastic job in taking on the teaching unions and the lefty elite that has dragged our education system towards third world levels.
So what does Cameron do? Lose his nerve and sack him. Pathetic.
You said we could profitably look at the de-regulation by Thatcher/Regan for the seeds of the banking crash of 2007. Fair go, I just wanted to know what measures you were talking about. So far you haven't been able to tell me, just a quote on Wikki and a reference to the Big Bang. I thought you might know something that I didn't. Seems you didn't. OK, I am comfortable with that.
Big Bang was part of her general policy of taking on vested interests wherever she found them
Depends on whether Iran sticks to the agreement and what Obama gave up in return.
Responding to the comments above: -
The specific measures which led to Big Bang were the ones lifting the restrictive practices which had been in place e.g. the need to have separation between jobbers and brokers. Those steps did not cause the financial crisis. What they did do is lay the foundations for the development of a financial industry which, over time and as a result of other measures, became too big, too able to use very large balance sheets (consisting of assets held on behalf of retail customers - and this is where the repeal of Glass-Steagall is highly relevant) to trade on its own behalf for its (and our) good coupled with some very inept regulation, for which Brown's decisions were responsible.
I don't think you can hold either one person (Brown) or one government responsible for the financial crisis. There were a combination of factors which led to it. One of those factors was the change to the City as a result of Big Bang but it is trite and untrue to say, as some do, that the financial crisis was caused by Thatcher. Equally, where Brown was culpable was in not strengthening but rather weakening such regulation as there was and in relying so much on the revenues from the City that he was either unwilling or unable to regulate effectively. That meant that the problems became big problems so that when the bust came it was almost too large for governments to deal with - and we are still dealing with the consequences today and will be for some time to come.
I have a vague memory that the Tories used that poster in the past (Scottish devolution maybe?) but couldn't find it with a quick google
An alternative is to say actually banking practices in the early 2000s had bugger all to do with politicians who had been out of power for a very long time and everything to do with those politicians who introduced the regulatory framework that was then in place.
Even now Osborne and Cameron are wedded to it, having learned nothing from the crash.
It does look like a eurosceptic reshuffle has dented the Tories by banging on about Europe again.
Either that, or the summer holidays have begun, and everyone is on the beach.
What are the odds that no party secures even 10 million next year? They must be pretty high. Way higher than the chances of any securing 11.5 million.
If the reshuffle was intended to freshen up the party's image and help to attract the female vote it appears to have failed miserably.
On anything like these numbers, Betfair's current odds of 9/4 net against a Labour majority looks like good value, but DYOR.
You see from where I sit the Conservatives have elected themselves a stone-bonker, heir to Blair, Europhile leader. Cameron has also, in recent times, come up with some contradictory statements. He wants to stay in the EU, he wants to negotiate a new settlement (though nobody in else in the EU does), he wants to sell us this new settlement in 2017 when he will campaign to stay in, he can't tell us what the new settlement could be, or even what he would like it to be, because that would spoil his negotiating position. Its complete horseshit. If someone in business came to you with that sort of attitude you would sling him out of your office inside five minutes.
Then there is the personal level. Individuals were worried about where Cameron seemed to want to go and were looking at what UKIP were saying. Cameron the accused those people, mostly good people who mostly voted Conservative, of being fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists. Now he wants them to vote for him.
UKIP voters cutting off their noses? Yes, maybe, but from their point of view why not? Where is the benefit in voting for a party whose leader despises them, has said he opposes their core desire, and is about as believable as one of Paul Daniels magic tricks?
http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/ll_a_s/2014/Jul/20/LiveLeak-dot-com-b64_1405867667-sBzYjKU_1405867670.jpg?d5e8cc8eccfb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bdd7934442d2d69ecb&ec_rate=230
Some of the Big Bang changes were for the good. If they'd been better controlled then we might have had an industry which was effective, competitive, profitable and a credit to the country. But sometimes - all too often, in fact - people assume that because something is good, more of it is necessarily also an unalloyed good. And it ain't so. There is a limit and the industry itself and politicians and regulators and, indeed, the public were - and are - very bad at assessing when we've reached that limit where more will mean worse (whether in terms of bad loans or bad risks or outright criminality).
Deregulation was good in 1986. That did not mean that endless deregulation and light touch or wrong touch regulation in 2005 was also good. Allowing banks to become bigger to have economies of scale = good; allowing them to become so big a la RBS = not so good. Etc etc.
The criticisms made of Brown and what he did in 1997 have some force. But it is interesting that today very similar criticisms are being made of the changes which this government has made to regulation and, specifically, the split between the PRA and the FCA.
I remain of the old-fashioned view that no system, however perfectly designed, is proof against dishonest people and a bad system can work surprisingly well if you have honest people with integrity in it trying to do the right thing. Which is why the quality and character of people you have working for you are at least as important as the specific rules and structures you have in place.
Still, interesting to see the very different changes which 1979 brought to the Western and Middle Eastern worlds, both (in their own way) a reaction to perceived failures in the preceding years.
Clinton era deregulation, abolition of Glass Steagall etc.
The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which George Bush jumped on to win Hispanic votes but only ensured the 'minority mortgage meltdown' or subprime crisis.
Those countries that ran unsustainable public spending and failed to curb financial sector excess through regulation or interest rates (Greece, Ireland, Iceland and Labour's Britain).
Hardly a ringing vote of confidence.
Why should Lord Ashcroft commission these polls if it is not to use them to peddle his own views? There are no shortages of polls.
There is a genuine gap in the ideological sphere for a philosophy opposed to consumer capitalism and sympathetic to the seemingly oppressed. It is a space for the religious and green parties as well as some of the nationalist parties.
But after Big Bang in what way were we different from other financial markets? If we somehow had a magical advantage then did our cometitors do nothing or did they emulate us?
My reason for asking is that if there were some consequences peculiar to Big Bang then surely the whole world is involved.
Plus at the end of the day its the govt of the day's reponsibility to regulate financial services.
Yet more proof I should avoid analysing Tory strategy. You'd have thought I would have learned my lesson after losing my shirt betting on a Tory majority last time.
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85089
seems the Antonov was shot down on the 14th at 6000m but the implications didn't fully sink in straight away
But I'm wondering whether a new category might not be sensible: that of "non-responder". I have become one of these and, I suspect in many cases Malcolm is too. I shall deliver my opinions freely, tediously and at length to friends & family, but not to pollsters. We have opinions, and thus aren't DKs, but won't tell them for many reasons. I wonder how many of us there are.
Before credit cards and the like it was inconceivable that, say, a bricklayer or a nurse could get much credit. Often they were paid in cash and when the money ran out that was it.
Then suddenly credit in the western world became some sort of democratic right. People expected it, whatever their earnings or place in life. Even those in and out of the welfare system could get a credit card or a home loan. Politicians realised there were votes in credit and lent on the banks hard. In return they expected consolidation to go through on the nod.
Gradually the thing spiralled until ever bigger banks were lending ever more money on homes to ever more people who had no prospect of paying back. Thus begat subprime, and the rest is history.
The credit crunch of 2008 wasn;t really a crunch. It was a return to sanity.
A possible outcome of this order makes Ladbrokes' odds of 10/1 against the Tories winning between 226 - 250 seats look decidedly attractive imho, but DYOR.
Avoiding polls, however, doesn't achieve anything much, but it does save time, and that's nice. Also, when I did play the game I found suspicious "consumerist" questions sneaking in. I wonder if we're suffering from cumulative poll poisoning.
Now that takes me over 300. It's time for a glass or two. Italian I think.
What is the UK's current level of household debt?
The question is why with an improving economy do Tories feel so negative about their parties chances next year ? Has it got to the stage where people know what the likely outcome of the election will be ? This appears to be a Lab/Lib coalition, with some Lib Dem MP's already considering that outcome, thinking what policies they could work on together.
Trouble is if you spend what you don't have you have to pay it back eventually, which is what - very very slowly - we are trying to do now.
Some loosening of credit is good. Without it firms can't borrow to invest, for instance. But too much and what you get is people spending like there's no tomorrow, not saving and one almighty headache when it all goes wrong as it will, eventually.
And if you say to people now that they can only go on holiday or buy a car or a new phone or whatever when they have saved up the money to be able to afford it outright, they look at you as if you're from the moon.
The Tories don't "deserve" votes as of right from anyone. - they need to convince them to lend them their support.
But it's quite simple: a vote for UKIP will, in most cases, reduce the chance of a Tory-led government after 2015. Assuming that a UKIP majority government is not a plausible outcome then a vote for UKIP will reduce the chance of a referendum on EU membership in the next Parliament.
If may be, of course, that EU membership is not the primary reason to vote UKIP. If that is the case, then the above logic, will not impact voting intention
I'll stick with ICM, the rise of UKIP notwithstanding, until events prove otherwise.
@PaulLewis
On eve of White House visit, Ed Miliband told reporters: “I'm going because I want to be prime minister of Britain in less than 10 months."
As for the fruitcakes that comment was made when UKIP was at 3%. It never related to former Tories like SeanF or your goodself. Of course people then made a game of trying to get Cameron to disavow the comments much later, but he was nevr going to. As far as I'm aware he didn't repeat them though.
Blue on blue though, carry on, what a delight!
12 hours 12 minutes 12 seconds