She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Secondly, Miliband is a key person in Burnham's project. I think he will want Miliband in a senior post. The obvious other position would be Deputy Prime Minister. However I think Burnham would want a woman in either DPM or CoE role so there's a configuration to think about.
The baggage, or pile-on by the media leading to a negative public view of Miliband, is a problem however. Question is how much appetite Burnham has for facing it down. Limited I suspect.
The main thing though is that Burnham is coming into the premiership with very few favours owed to existing cabinet members and he has 400 MPs to choose from. He can make his own team.
Also, possibly, doesn't owe many favours to the Westminster press-pack. If he does push on with the devolution plan and makes Ed.M chancellor - then possibly regional news outlets (what's left of them) become more important to voters. Sad though it would make me to not hear LauraK and ChrisM's thoughts on the rain or who who-said-what-to-who-senior-sources-tell-me, of course.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
On a day when the Conservatives have been roasted by Lady Hallet for the criminal dereliction of duty by spaffing up the wall TEN BILLION pounds on USELESS PPE you Tories have some gaul calling out Brown.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
Agreed. Brown should be excoriated for PPI but not for the global financial crisis.
There is no doubt that the UK would have been hit severely economically by the American financial crisis whatever happened.
But there is also no doubt that our financial sector was appallingly badly regulated by the regime that Brown set up and the crony quangocrats like Lord Turner and Callum McCarthy that he appointed to run it. Northern Rock preceded Lehman Brothers after all.
So Brown did not cause the disaster, but his actions as Chancellor undoubtedly made it much worse.
'Keir Starmer has become the first UK prime minister to be presented with the Légion d’honneur by a French president, in recognition of his work with France on the security of Europe.
Emmanuel Macron awarded the historic honour to Starmer for his leadership in setting up the coalition of the willing – a group of countries chaired by France and the UK that have pledged to support Ukraine – at a critical moment for Europe in early 2025.
The only other British prime minister to receive a similar award – at a higher level, the Grand-Croix of the Légion d’honneur – was Winston Churchill in 1958 in recognition of his leadership and close ties to France during the second world war....'
But to pay a 17 year old for sex is still an offence today. And he was 39. Yusuf is a creep but the discriminatory laws at the time are not that relevant to this.
Harvey omits in that response the fact that he was alleged to have paid for sex with, among others, a 17 year old (though, unknowingly - the boy lied about his age.). There was no specific law against this at the time, but there is now.
So whilst he benefits from the restrospective forgiveness for homosexual relationships betwen 16 and 21, he would be harmed by a similar retrospective application of the laws against paying someone 16-18 for sex. And of taking polaroids of a naked 17 year old.
(Note to moderators, source is Harvey Proctor's wikipedia page).
But to pay a 17 year old for sex is still an offence today. And he was 39. Yusuf is a creep but the discriminatory laws at the time are not that relevant to this.
But, as he said, the lad said he was older than that. 21 IIRC.
But to pay a 17 year old for sex is still an offence today. And he was 39. Yusuf is a creep but the discriminatory laws at the time are not that relevant to this.
But, as he said, the lad said he was older than that. 21 IIRC.
Well Proctor said he did. The difference between a 17 year old boy and a 21 year old man is normally pretty obvious, arguably more obvious than it might be with girls.
Victor Hugo, Napoleon, Louis XIV, Joan of Arc, Charles de Gaulle...your boys took one hell of a beating....
To add injury to insult, a British trained and ridden horse won the Grand Prix de Paris at Longchamp this evening in the form of MALTESE CROSS, who had run second in the Derby at Epsom.
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
On a day when the Conservatives have been roasted by Lady Hallet for the criminal dereliction of duty by spaffing up the wall TEN BILLION pounds on USELESS PPE you Tories have some gaul calling out Brown.
But to pay a 17 year old for sex is still an offence today. And he was 39. Yusuf is a creep but the discriminatory laws at the time are not that relevant to this.
But, as he said, the lad said he was older than that. 21 IIRC.
Well Proctor said he did. The difference between a 17 year old boy and a 21 year old man is normally pretty obvious, arguably more obvious than it might be with girls.
According to Mr Proctor it was on tape the lad said it.
I may spend 10 minutes tomorrow previewing the main event of the evening.
Kirklees council will spend the England game in their third attempt at electing a council leader, Reform having declined the option of rescheduling. Such patriotism.
But to pay a 17 year old for sex is still an offence today. And he was 39. Yusuf is a creep but the discriminatory laws at the time are not that relevant to this.
But, as he said, the lad said he was older than that. 21 IIRC.
Well Proctor said he did. The difference between a 17 year old boy and a 21 year old man is normally pretty obvious, arguably more obvious than it might be with girls.
But as he points out, the discriminatory age difference is no longer law.
And back then, it was probably not illegal to pay an u-18 for sex, as has been discussed regarding Prince Andrew
But to pay a 17 year old for sex is still an offence today. And he was 39. Yusuf is a creep but the discriminatory laws at the time are not that relevant to this.
But, as he said, the lad said he was older than that. 21 IIRC.
Well Proctor said he did. The difference between a 17 year old boy and a 21 year old man is normally pretty obvious, arguably more obvious than it might be with girls.
But as he points out, the discriminatory age difference is no longer law.
And back then, it was probably not illegal to pay an u-18 for sex, as has been discussed regarding Prince Andrew
Right, but sauce for the Goose. We have retrospectively forgiven the former law but not retrospectively applied the latter...
She's tough as nails and Andy rates her. Markets will like it and for all the softy lefty talk that's important.
Also avoids the bad optics of replacing the first F Chancellor with a man.
Preferred to Yvette on that score. Maybe because despite being a woman Yvette has Balls.
I like Shabana, and it would be a sensible appointment especially as labour women are unhappy that they have not had a leader yet
Also her immigration policies passed yesterday
We will see. But she is the clear betting fav now. Ed is out with the washing. Pat still just about hanging in there. There has clearly been some scuttlebut.
On the one hand Burnham can choose whoever he damned well pleases. On the other he does actually need a safe pair of hands as CoE and Mahmood is not that, in general or economics in particular which she has almost no experience of. There's a lot of vibes going around to do wth Mahmood and Miliband that mostly can be ignored. Putting all that together, feels to me like a lay for Mahmood.
But Miliband has so much baggage he needs a goods train. Appointing him could kill a lot of the hope that will accompany Burnham before he even gets started.
I think Miliband has two things in his favour as Burnham's choice as CoE.
First he's best qualified of the front runners for the role. He has significant Treasury experience dating back to Gordon Brown times, he's an effective minister and can be relied on in getting Burnham's policies through. As far as I know he would be acceptable to the markets. You may not agree with me about Miliband's competence but I think Burnham does.
Only in the lunatic world of Labour's anti-economics is being in Gordon Brown's Treasury a plus point.
The regime whose disastrously complacent and incompetent regulation of the financial sector set us up for a massive financial crisis that we're still recovering from; which managed to turn the golden economic legacy the Conservatives left into a, by their own admission, "no money left" national bankruptcy, and which set us on the disastrous regulate, tax and waste economic road we're now, even according to the OBR, reaching the end of.
Added to the destruction of our energy industry and his disastrous defeat as Labour leader, and the phrase Master of Disaster could have been coined for Ed Miliband.
Burnham would be wise to run a million miles from him.
You've fallen for Osborne's 2010 propaganda. Jeremy Hunt said when he went to the Treasury, he was surprised to discover how highly rated was Gordon Brown.
In my view Browns worst legacy was the mountain of PPI he left behind. Hospital needs a light bulb changed? Kerchief that’s 250 quid please… It was a way to spend lots of money off the books, and it still has ramifications today.
On a day when the Conservatives have been roasted by Lady Hallet for the criminal dereliction of duty by spaffing up the wall TEN BILLION pounds on USELESS PPE you Tories have some gaul calling out Brown.
Could be worse - we could also be spaffing £208mn extra up the wall for a useless enquiry.
But to pay a 17 year old for sex is still an offence today. And he was 39. Yusuf is a creep but the discriminatory laws at the time are not that relevant to this.
But, as he said, the lad said he was older than that. 21 IIRC.
Well Proctor said he did. The difference between a 17 year old boy and a 21 year old man is normally pretty obvious, arguably more obvious than it might be with girls.
But as he points out, the discriminatory age difference is no longer law.
And back then, it was probably not illegal to pay an u-18 for sex, as has been discussed regarding Prince Andrew
Right, but sauce for the Goose. We have retrospectively forgiven the former law but not retrospectively applied the latter...
Prostitution isn't illegal. So back then it wasn't illegal to pay a 17 year old girl for sex either.
I have never understood why the exchange of cash should make something wrong.
"Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges."
But to pay a 17 year old for sex is still an offence today. And he was 39. Yusuf is a creep but the discriminatory laws at the time are not that relevant to this.
But, as he said, the lad said he was older than that. 21 IIRC.
Well Proctor said he did. The difference between a 17 year old boy and a 21 year old man is normally pretty obvious, arguably more obvious than it might be with girls.
But as he points out, the discriminatory age difference is no longer law.
And back then, it was probably not illegal to pay an u-18 for sex, as has been discussed regarding Prince Andrew
Right, but sauce for the Goose. We have retrospectively forgiven the former law but not retrospectively applied the latter...
Prostitution isn't illegal. So back then it wasn't illegal to pay a 17 year old girl for sex either.
I have never understood why the exchange of cash should make something wrong.
As opposed to a nice meal, a movie , a drink in the pub and then bed, for instance.
"Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges."
What serious leftwing terrorism have we had? I know Germany, for example had it. But us? Not counting old ladies with Palestine Action placards....
'Keir Starmer has become the first UK prime minister to be presented with the Légion d’honneur by a French president, in recognition of his work with France on the security of Europe.
Emmanuel Macron awarded the historic honour to Starmer for his leadership in setting up the coalition of the willing – a group of countries chaired by France and the UK that have pledged to support Ukraine – at a critical moment for Europe in early 2025.
The only other British prime minister to receive a similar award – at a higher level, the Grand-Croix of the Légion d’honneur – was Winston Churchill in 1958 in recognition of his leadership and close ties to France during the second world war....'
"Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges."
What serious leftwing terrorism have we had? I know Germany, for example had it. But us? Not counting old ladies with Palestine Action placards....
The IRA were communists, weren't they? And my guess is that the various Islamic terrorists see themselves on the left hand side of the spectrum. But I don't think either of those fit into the Bader Meinhif category. We periodically had May Day rioters and the like though that has gone away of late. There' the various Sebastians and Jemimas of Just Stop Oil but calling those mithering pricks 'terrorists' gives them a sigjificance they don't deserve. You occasionally get the animal rights lot I suppose.
I have worked in banking & financial service regulatory affairs for the last fifteen years.
Gordon Brown is entirely responsible for the fuck ups at RBS and Northern Rock that happened thanks to his regulatory changes.
I'll dig out Peter Lilley's warning in 1997/98 that turned out to be prescient.
I worked in it for longer (inc when it was happening) and that is nonsense.
Strange then that Lilley's predictions turned out to be so accurate?
A speech by Peter Lilley in 97/98 hardly proves that the RBS and Northern Rock collapses a decade later were purely or mainly down to Brown's regulatory changes.
Of course it was a Reg failure. But the root cause was the avarice and hubris of the sector, driven by the bonus culture, and the drying up of credit and liquidity following the Born in the USA crash.
It was a juggernaut of bubble and fraud. No feasible Reg regime was going to stop it. It was finger in the dyke at best.
"Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges."
What serious leftwing terrorism have we had? I know Germany, for example had it. But us? Not counting old ladies with Palestine Action placards....
The IRA were communists, weren't they? And my guess is that the various Islamic terrorists see themselves on the left hand side of the spectrum. But I don't think either of those fit into the Bader Meinhif category. We periodically had May Day rioters and the like though that has gone away of late. There' the various Sebastians and Jemimas of Just Stop Oil but calling those mithering pricks 'terrorists' gives them a sigjificance they don't deserve. You occasionally get the animal rights lot I suppose.
I had forgotten the animal rights activists digging up the dead grandmother of a pharma executive. Good shout.
I have worked in banking & financial service regulatory affairs for the last fifteen years.
Gordon Brown is entirely responsible for the fuck ups at RBS and Northern Rock that happened thanks to his regulatory changes.
I'll dig out Peter Lilley's warning in 1997/98 that turned out to be prescient.
So bankers are desperate to behave like irresponsible arseholes, and it is only tight regulation that stops them doing so?
Nobody forced the banks to play fast and loose. It was a crisis of their own making.
They were encouraged by politicians.
ALEX Salmond offered the assistance of the Scottish Government to Sir Fred Goodwin for the disastrous takeover of ABN Amro that almost destroyed the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The Scottish Government spent 18 months trying to prevent the release of a secret letter from the First Minister in which he fully endorsed Sir Fred's bid for the Dutch bank.
Mr Salmond offered the chief executive "any assistance my office can provide" and said it would be in Scotland's best interest for the RBS takeover to succeed. Two years later he would describe the deal as a "huge mistake" and one of the bank's many "grievous errors".
RBS bought ABN for 49 billion, a grossly inflated price that was put down to Sir Fred's determination not to lose a bidding war with Barclays. In buying the bank RBS exposed itself during the credit crunch to ABN's toxic assets and, as a result, posted the biggest loss in UK corporate history, 24bn, in 2008.
By 1999, Brown had the banker involved in the kind of charitable work mixed with policy reviews he so likes to bestow on friends: Sir Fred chaired a government task force on the work of credit unions and the New Deal programme, talismanic New Labour projects.
In 2001, Goodwin was in the contingent of businessmen who attended a pre-election lunch at Chequers aimed at securing the backing of the bankers for that year's poll. This was despite Goodwin disliking the limelight and dismissing "networking".
At the height of its success, it will not have gone unnoticed by Brown that RBS channelled £3bn in taxes into the Treasury. Brown and Goodwin did not diverge when RBS performed the takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro, the biggest European financial takeover, that proved the undoing of the Scottish bank.
I have worked in banking & financial service regulatory affairs for the last fifteen years.
Gordon Brown is entirely responsible for the fuck ups at RBS and Northern Rock that happened thanks to his regulatory changes.
I'll dig out Peter Lilley's warning in 1997/98 that turned out to be prescient.
So bankers are desperate to behave like irresponsible arseholes, and it is only tight regulation that stops them doing so?
Nobody forced the banks to play fast and loose. It was a crisis of their own making.
They were encouraged by politicians.
ALEX Salmond offered the assistance of the Scottish Government to Sir Fred Goodwin for the disastrous takeover of ABN Amro that almost destroyed the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The Scottish Government spent 18 months trying to prevent the release of a secret letter from the First Minister in which he fully endorsed Sir Fred's bid for the Dutch bank.
Mr Salmond offered the chief executive "any assistance my office can provide" and said it would be in Scotland's best interest for the RBS takeover to succeed. Two years later he would describe the deal as a "huge mistake" and one of the bank's many "grievous errors".
RBS bought ABN for 49 billion, a grossly inflated price that was put down to Sir Fred's determination not to lose a bidding war with Barclays. In buying the bank RBS exposed itself during the credit crunch to ABN's toxic assets and, as a result, posted the biggest loss in UK corporate history, 24bn, in 2008.
By 1999, Brown had the banker involved in the kind of charitable work mixed with policy reviews he so likes to bestow on friends: Sir Fred chaired a government task force on the work of credit unions and the New Deal programme, talismanic New Labour projects.
In 2001, Goodwin was in the contingent of businessmen who attended a pre-election lunch at Chequers aimed at securing the backing of the bankers for that year's poll. This was despite Goodwin disliking the limelight and dismissing "networking".
At the height of its success, it will not have gone unnoticed by Brown that RBS channelled £3bn in taxes into the Treasury. Brown and Goodwin did not diverge when RBS performed the takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro, the biggest European financial takeover, that proved the undoing of the Scottish bank.
I have worked in banking & financial service regulatory affairs for the last fifteen years.
Gordon Brown is entirely responsible for the fuck ups at RBS and Northern Rock that happened thanks to his regulatory changes.
I'll dig out Peter Lilley's warning in 1997/98 that turned out to be prescient.
So bankers are desperate to behave like irresponsible arseholes, and it is only tight regulation that stops them doing so?
Nobody forced the banks to play fast and loose. It was a crisis of their own making.
At one point, when Barclays withdrew from competing to buy ABN, just before the crisis, the government actually threatened to promote a shareholder lawsuit against Barclays management, with the government providing evidence.
Brown and Balls were stoking the bubble - Balls was sent out to rubbish any claims that the derivatives bubble was a bubble.
And so on.
All because the banks profits were providing the tax money that Brown wanted to spend.
"Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges."
What serious leftwing terrorism have we had? I know Germany, for example had it. But us? Not counting old ladies with Palestine Action placards....
I don't know about you, but obviously many of us recall 15 February 1894 when the anarchist Martial Bourdin blew himself up by accident when preparing for an attack in Greenwich Park.
Away from football it seems Shabana Mahmood has become fav for next CoE
She should stay where she is. She's doing a good job.
Hopefully Burnham doesn't want to install a handwringer at the Home Office.
He would be mad to move her. Utterly bizarre if true.
How many of you are Labour supporters? She's more right-wing than Patel. Conservatives were mad not to install Rory Stewart as PM. He would have got them to a pro-Europe centrist party full of social liberalism, climate activism and an internationalist view of foreign policy with increasing aid budget.
I have worked in banking & financial service regulatory affairs for the last fifteen years.
Gordon Brown is entirely responsible for the fuck ups at RBS and Northern Rock that happened thanks to his regulatory changes.
I'll dig out Peter Lilley's warning in 1997/98 that turned out to be prescient.
So bankers are desperate to behave like irresponsible arseholes, and it is only tight regulation that stops them doing so?
Nobody forced the banks to play fast and loose. It was a crisis of their own making.
Maybe if John McDonnell had been Chancellor.
But the whole culture back then (courtesy of the US and Wall St) was "these finance guys know what they're doing, it's good for everyone, they pay a lot of tax, leave them be".
That was the consensus in business and politics. And it was all fine until it wasn't.
I have worked in banking & financial service regulatory affairs for the last fifteen years.
Gordon Brown is entirely responsible for the fuck ups at RBS and Northern Rock that happened thanks to his regulatory changes.
I'll dig out Peter Lilley's warning in 1997/98 that turned out to be prescient.
So bankers are desperate to behave like irresponsible arseholes, and it is only tight regulation that stops them doing so?
Nobody forced the banks to play fast and loose. It was a crisis of their own making.
They were encouraged by politicians.
ALEX Salmond offered the assistance of the Scottish Government to Sir Fred Goodwin for the disastrous takeover of ABN Amro that almost destroyed the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The Scottish Government spent 18 months trying to prevent the release of a secret letter from the First Minister in which he fully endorsed Sir Fred's bid for the Dutch bank.
Mr Salmond offered the chief executive "any assistance my office can provide" and said it would be in Scotland's best interest for the RBS takeover to succeed. Two years later he would describe the deal as a "huge mistake" and one of the bank's many "grievous errors".
RBS bought ABN for 49 billion, a grossly inflated price that was put down to Sir Fred's determination not to lose a bidding war with Barclays. In buying the bank RBS exposed itself during the credit crunch to ABN's toxic assets and, as a result, posted the biggest loss in UK corporate history, 24bn, in 2008.
By 1999, Brown had the banker involved in the kind of charitable work mixed with policy reviews he so likes to bestow on friends: Sir Fred chaired a government task force on the work of credit unions and the New Deal programme, talismanic New Labour projects.
In 2001, Goodwin was in the contingent of businessmen who attended a pre-election lunch at Chequers aimed at securing the backing of the bankers for that year's poll. This was despite Goodwin disliking the limelight and dismissing "networking".
At the height of its success, it will not have gone unnoticed by Brown that RBS channelled £3bn in taxes into the Treasury. Brown and Goodwin did not diverge when RBS performed the takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro, the biggest European financial takeover, that proved the undoing of the Scottish bank.
"Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges."
What serious leftwing terrorism have we had? I know Germany, for example had it. But us? Not counting old ladies with Palestine Action placards....
I don't know about you, but obviously many of us recall 15 February 1894 when the anarchist Martial Bourdin blew himself up by accident when preparing for an attack in Greenwich Park.
Fascinating.
"The attempt to blow up the Greenwich Observatory: a blood-stained inanity of so fatuous a kind that is impossible to fathom its origin by any reasonable or even unreasonable process of thought" - Joseph Conrad
"Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges."
What serious leftwing terrorism have we had? I know Germany, for example had it. But us? Not counting old ladies with Palestine Action placards....
The IRA were communists, weren't they? And my guess is that the various Islamic terrorists see themselves on the left hand side of the spectrum. But I don't think either of those fit into the Bader Meinhif category. We periodically had May Day rioters and the like though that has gone away of late. There' the various Sebastians and Jemimas of Just Stop Oil but calling those mithering pricks 'terrorists' gives them a sigjificance they don't deserve. You occasionally get the animal rights lot I suppose.
The IRA, in various guitars, identified as far left, but those more interested in Marxism than nationalism were the ones that stopped sooner.
Palestinian terrorism in the '70s was generally left-wing and *not* Islamic. The Islamist terrorists came later and generally rejected earlier political motivations. Hamas world reject political labels, but are right-wing.
I have worked in banking & financial service regulatory affairs for the last fifteen years.
Gordon Brown is entirely responsible for the fuck ups at RBS and Northern Rock that happened thanks to his regulatory changes.
I'll dig out Peter Lilley's warning in 1997/98 that turned out to be prescient.
So bankers are desperate to behave like irresponsible arseholes, and it is only tight regulation that stops them doing so?
Nobody forced the banks to play fast and loose. It was a crisis of their own making.
Maybe if John McDonnell had been Chancellor.
But the whole culture back then (courtesy of the US and Wall St) was "these finance guys know what they're doing, it's good for everyone, they pay a lot of tax, leave them be".
That was the consensus in business and politics. And it was all fine until it wasn't.
“ Nobody forced the banks to play fast and loose. It was a crisis of their own making.”
TSE is right, from day 1 Brown’s policy direction didn’t match the deceitful “end to boom and bust” slogan, because he was geared to creating boom by cutting regulation on banks and the city, and praising banks for being creative with their products, specifically he stripped the power of banks oversight from Bank of England who were doing it well, gave it to FSA to deliberately take a much lighter touch for him. Brown admitted all these mistakes he made, so why argue he didn’t make them? You are effectively arguing with confessor saying he didn’t commit the crimes.
"Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges."
What serious leftwing terrorism have we had? I know Germany, for example had it. But us? Not counting old ladies with Palestine Action placards....
The IRA were communists, weren't they? And my guess is that the various Islamic terrorists see themselves on the left hand side of the spectrum. But I don't think either of those fit into the Bader Meinhif category. We periodically had May Day rioters and the like though that has gone away of late. There' the various Sebastians and Jemimas of Just Stop Oil but calling those mithering pricks 'terrorists' gives them a sigjificance they don't deserve. You occasionally get the animal rights lot I suppose.
I had forgotten the animal rights activists digging up the dead grandmother of a pharma executive. Good shout.
But to pay a 17 year old for sex is still an offence today. And he was 39. Yusuf is a creep but the discriminatory laws at the time are not that relevant to this.
But, as he said, the lad said he was older than that. 21 IIRC.
Well Proctor said he did. The difference between a 17 year old boy and a 21 year old man is normally pretty obvious, arguably more obvious than it might be with girls.
But as he points out, the discriminatory age difference is no longer law.
And back then, it was probably not illegal to pay an u-18 for sex, as has been discussed regarding Prince Andrew
Right, but sauce for the Goose. We have retrospectively forgiven the former law but not retrospectively applied the latter...
Prostitution isn't illegal. So back then it wasn't illegal to pay a 17 year old girl for sex either.
I have never understood why the exchange of cash should make something wrong.
"Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges."
What serious leftwing terrorism have we had? I know Germany, for example had it. But us? Not counting old ladies with Palestine Action placards....
I don't know about you, but obviously many of us recall 15 February 1894 when the anarchist Martial Bourdin blew himself up by accident when preparing for an attack in Greenwich Park.
But to pay a 17 year old for sex is still an offence today. And he was 39. Yusuf is a creep but the discriminatory laws at the time are not that relevant to this.
But, as he said, the lad said he was older than that. 21 IIRC.
Well Proctor said he did. The difference between a 17 year old boy and a 21 year old man is normally pretty obvious, arguably more obvious than it might be with girls.
But as he points out, the discriminatory age difference is no longer law.
And back then, it was probably not illegal to pay an u-18 for sex, as has been discussed regarding Prince Andrew
Right, but sauce for the Goose. We have retrospectively forgiven the former law but not retrospectively applied the latter...
Prostitution isn't illegal. So back then it wasn't illegal to pay a 17 year old girl for sex either.
I have never understood why the exchange of cash should make something wrong.
"Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges."
What serious leftwing terrorism have we had? I know Germany, for example had it. But us? Not counting old ladies with Palestine Action placards....
I don't know about you, but obviously many of us recall 15 February 1894 when the anarchist Martial Bourdin blew himself up by accident when preparing for an attack in Greenwich Park.
"Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges."
What serious leftwing terrorism have we had? I know Germany, for example had it. But us? Not counting old ladies with Palestine Action placards....
I don't know about you, but obviously many of us recall 15 February 1894 when the anarchist Martial Bourdin blew himself up by accident when preparing for an attack in Greenwich Park.
Away from football it seems Shabana Mahmood has become fav for next CoE
She should stay where she is. She's doing a good job.
Hopefully Burnham doesn't want to install a handwringer at the Home Office.
He would be mad to move her. Utterly bizarre if true.
How many of you are Labour supporters? She's more right-wing than Patel. Conservatives were mad not to install Rory Stewart as PM. He would have got them to a pro-Europe centrist party full of social liberalism, climate activism and an internationalist view of foreign policy with increasing aid budget....
Harry Kane favourite for the Ballon d'Or for the next 24 hours.
If England win, then I suspect that's in the bag - unless Yamal does something very special in the final.
Coral & Ladbrokes offer 19/4 against a Messi assist tomorrow. Mbappé remains second favourite for the Golden Boot because he is leading the pack as things stand.
I have worked in banking & financial service regulatory affairs for the last fifteen years.
Gordon Brown is entirely responsible for the fuck ups at RBS and Northern Rock that happened thanks to his regulatory changes.
I'll dig out Peter Lilley's warning in 1997/98 that turned out to be prescient.
So bankers are desperate to behave like irresponsible arseholes, and it is only tight regulation that stops them doing so?
Nobody forced the banks to play fast and loose. It was a crisis of their own making.
Maybe if John McDonnell had been Chancellor.
But the whole culture back then (courtesy of the US and Wall St) was "these finance guys know what they're doing, it's good for everyone, they pay a lot of tax, leave them be".
That was the consensus in business and politics. And it was all fine until it wasn't.
None of that absolves Brown.
Agreed. He played a part. He turned a blind eye and enjoyed the taxes. But no feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political climate of those times would have prevented the crash. And he did manage the aftermath well. We were lucky to have him then.
Away from football it seems Shabana Mahmood has become fav for next CoE
She should stay where she is. She's doing a good job.
Hopefully Burnham doesn't want to install a handwringer at the Home Office.
He would be mad to move her. Utterly bizarre if true.
How many of you are Labour supporters? She's more right-wing than Patel. Conservatives were mad not to install Rory Stewart as PM. He would have got them to a pro-Europe centrist party full of social liberalism, climate activism and an internationalist view of foreign policy with increasing aid budget....
...and they would have lost.
Against Corbyn? I doubt it. Wasn't really the point I was making anyway.
I have worked in banking & financial service regulatory affairs for the last fifteen years.
Gordon Brown is entirely responsible for the fuck ups at RBS and Northern Rock that happened thanks to his regulatory changes.
I'll dig out Peter Lilley's warning in 1997/98 that turned out to be prescient.
I worked in it for longer (inc when it was happening) and that is nonsense.
Strange then that Lilley's predictions turned out to be so accurate?
A speech by Peter Lilley in 97/98 hardly proves that the RBS and Northern Rock collapses a decade later were purely or mainly down to Brown's regulatory changes.
Of course it was a Reg failure. But the root cause was the avarice and hubris of the sector, driven by the bonus culture, and the drying up of credit and liquidity following the Born in the USA crash.
It was a juggernaut of bubble and fraud. No feasible Reg regime was going to stop it. It was finger in the dyke at best.
Not at all. Bankers are greedy and stupid worldwide, but the crisis was concentrated in only some countries.
Italy, Canada or Sweden, for instance, didn't have a financial crisis in 2008, though they were all affected by the economic shock from countries that did in 2009-10. The US, Spain and Ireland absolutely did. So did the UK. Why? Poor regulation. And who set up the UK's financial regulation system and ran it for a decade? Gordon Brown and his Treasury, when they weren't busy squandering the Conservatives' golden economic legacy or wasting money on PPI or other public sector waste.
The word hysteresis - which in economics is when the after-effects of a disaster long outlast the disaster itself - is not in common use, but it explains perfectly the legacy we're still dealing with from that bunch of serial incompetents.
EXC: The cabinet will present Keir Starmer with a specially engraved carriage clock for his leaving present tomorrow
David Lammy has organised the whip-round
A carriage clock? Is it 1985?
Blair - standing ovation in the House.
Thatcher - grown male MPs in tears
Churchill - House passes motion of "unbounded admiration and gratitude"
Starmer - carriage clock with the words 'thanks' engraved and then bungled out of the back door on a Monday morning whilst the rest of Britain is recovering from the world cup final.
Reports in The Times that the Treasury are looking to bring forward the increase in state pension age to 68 to start from 2037. The current published plan is to phase this increase in from April 2044.
EXC: The cabinet will present Keir Starmer with a specially engraved carriage clock for his leaving present tomorrow
David Lammy has organised the whip-round
A carriage clock? Is it 1985?
Blair - standing ovation in the House.
Thatcher - grown male MPs in tears
Churchill - House passes motion of "unbounded admiration and gratitude"
Starmer - carriage clock with the words 'thanks' engraved and then bungled out of the back door on a Monday morning whilst the rest of Britain is recovering from the world cup final.
Reports in The Times that the Treasury are looking to bring forward the increase in state pension age to 68 to start from 2037. The current published plan is to phase this increase in from April 2044.
Comments
Fair play to Harvey Proctor for how he responded
Is to loathe, loathe, loathe him....
Gordon Brown is entirely responsible for the fuck ups at RBS and Northern Rock that happened thanks to his regulatory changes.
I'll dig out Peter Lilley's warning in 1997/98 that turned out to be prescient.
Two finals and two semi-finals across five tournaments.
These are unprecedented times to be an England fan.
A teenaged England fan today pretty much knows nothing other than deep runs into tournaments.
It didn't use to be this way.
Drink it in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c932rqverkvo
So whilst he benefits from the restrospective forgiveness for homosexual relationships betwen 16 and 21, he would be harmed by a similar retrospective application of the laws against paying someone 16-18 for sex. And of taking polaroids of a naked 17 year old.
(Note to moderators, source is Harvey Proctor's wikipedia page).
France rather outclassed to put it mildly.
votre gentilhommes ont pris une sacrée raclée.
Victor Hugo, Napoleon, Louis XIV, Joan of Arc, Charles de Gaulle...your boys took one hell of a beating....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL1zs4OKYAU
Kirklees council will spend the England game in their third attempt at electing a council leader, Reform having declined the option of rescheduling. Such patriotism.
https://bsky.app/profile/mauraquint.bsky.social/post/3mqn2q3hzkk2i
And back then, it was probably not illegal to pay an u-18 for sex, as has been discussed regarding Prince Andrew
Tomorrow: England and Keir Starmer's last PMQs
Sunday: World Cup Final
Monday: new PM and Cabinet?
I have never understood why the exchange of cash should make something wrong.
"Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges."
If England win, then I suspect that's in the bag - unless Yamal does something very special in the final.
Hopefully cheering on England and not Spain.
Of course, the English amongst us who picked Argentina don't want to get the points either.
Hopefully Burnham doesn't want to install a handwringer at the Home Office.
We periodically had May Day rioters and the like though that has gone away of late.
There' the various Sebastians and Jemimas of Just Stop Oil but calling those mithering pricks 'terrorists' gives them a sigjificance they don't deserve.
You occasionally get the animal rights lot I suppose.
Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ
I have submitted my application to stand for Reform at the next general election.
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/2077118797945647460
Of course it was a Reg failure. But the root cause was the avarice and hubris of the sector, driven by the bonus culture, and the drying up of credit and liquidity following the Born in the USA crash.
It was a juggernaut of bubble and fraud. No feasible Reg regime was going to stop it. It was finger in the dyke at best.
Nobody forced the banks to play fast and loose. It was a crisis of their own making.
ALEX Salmond offered the assistance of the Scottish Government to Sir Fred Goodwin for the disastrous takeover of ABN Amro that almost destroyed the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The Scottish Government spent 18 months trying to prevent the release of a secret letter from the First Minister in which he fully endorsed Sir Fred's bid for the Dutch bank.
Mr Salmond offered the chief executive "any assistance my office can provide" and said it would be in Scotland's best interest for the RBS takeover to succeed. Two years later he would describe the deal as a "huge mistake" and one of the bank's many "grievous errors".
RBS bought ABN for 49 billion, a grossly inflated price that was put down to Sir Fred's determination not to lose a bidding war with Barclays. In buying the bank RBS exposed itself during the credit crunch to ABN's toxic assets and, as a result, posted the biggest loss in UK corporate history, 24bn, in 2008.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/salmond-offered-rbs-help-in-bank-takeover-2508146
By 1999, Brown had the banker involved in the kind of charitable work mixed with policy reviews he so likes to bestow on friends: Sir Fred chaired a government task force on the work of credit unions and the New Deal programme, talismanic New Labour projects.
In 2001, Goodwin was in the contingent of businessmen who attended a pre-election lunch at Chequers aimed at securing the backing of the bankers for that year's poll. This was despite Goodwin disliking the limelight and dismissing "networking".
At the height of its success, it will not have gone unnoticed by Brown that RBS channelled £3bn in taxes into the Treasury. Brown and Goodwin did not diverge when RBS performed the takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro, the biggest European financial takeover, that proved the undoing of the Scottish bank.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/jan/21/sir-fred-goodwin-gordon-brown
Has there ever been, politics aside, a more personally gruesome set of people running a political party?
Brown and Balls were stoking the bubble - Balls was sent out to rubbish any claims that the derivatives bubble was a bubble.
And so on.
All because the banks profits were providing the tax money that Brown wanted to spend.
But the whole culture back then (courtesy of the US and Wall St) was "these finance guys know what they're doing, it's good for everyone, they pay a lot of tax, leave them be".
That was the consensus in business and politics. And it was all fine until it wasn't.
"The attempt to blow up the Greenwich Observatory: a blood-stained inanity of so fatuous a kind that is impossible to fathom its origin by any reasonable or even unreasonable process of thought" - Joseph Conrad
Palestinian terrorism in the '70s was generally left-wing and *not* Islamic. The Islamist terrorists came later and generally rejected earlier political motivations. Hamas world reject political labels, but are right-wing.
But now it distorts your worldview and destroys your soul. Pretty much as deliberate company policy.
TSE is right, from day 1 Brown’s policy direction didn’t match the deceitful “end to boom and bust” slogan, because he was geared to creating boom by cutting regulation on banks and the city, and praising banks for being creative with their products, specifically he stripped the power of banks oversight from Bank of England who were doing it well, gave it to FSA to deliberately take a much lighter touch for him.
Brown admitted all these mistakes he made, so why argue he didn’t make them? You are effectively arguing with confessor saying he didn’t commit the crimes.
You rang?
Patrick Maguire
@patrickkmaguire
EXC: The cabinet will present Keir Starmer with a specially engraved carriage clock for his leaving present tomorrow
David Lammy has organised the whip-round
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Agent
Italy, Canada or Sweden, for instance, didn't have a financial crisis in 2008, though they were all affected by the economic shock from countries that did in 2009-10. The US, Spain and Ireland absolutely did. So did the UK. Why? Poor regulation. And who set up the UK's financial regulation system and ran it for a decade? Gordon Brown and his Treasury, when they weren't busy squandering the Conservatives' golden economic legacy or wasting money on PPI or other public sector waste.
The word hysteresis - which in economics is when the after-effects of a disaster long outlast the disaster itself - is not in common use, but it explains perfectly the legacy we're still dealing with from that bunch of serial incompetents.
Thatcher - grown male MPs in tears
Churchill - House passes motion of "unbounded admiration and gratitude"
Starmer - carriage clock with the words 'thanks' engraved and then bungled out of the back door on a Monday morning whilst the rest of Britain is recovering from the world cup final.